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.
Your post still indicates you either do not understand what intercessory prayer is or you’re still mixing subjects up. Here, I will continue to try to stay on topic.
As to the cloud of witnesses, you’re welcome to your interpretation of course and you can imagine the Saints in Heaven excluded from the Body of Christ if you wish.
Likely you will also need a different interpretation for the fact that death does not separate us, for the family of God, one family in heaven and earth, the Transfiguration, the joy in heaven over one sinner that repents, that our God is the God of the living not the dead – Christ having defeated death, etc.
All the saints are members of one body, the Body of Christ. Not two, but we are One as Christ prayed in the garden.
We do not cease to be part of the One Body upon our earthly death; because, again, Christ has defeated death. You cannot have one body if the majority of its members are separated from the rest. If that were the case, there would be two bodies and one would not affect the other.
However, we are told:
“And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.”
I don’t know if it is part of your theology or church, but the Nicene Creed is the fundamental statement of belief for Catholics and, I believe, a majority of Protestants. What has been lost is the meaning of Communion of Saints.
There can be no communion without union. To posit complete separation between any saints is de facto negation of the Communion of Saints.
The Church is the Body of Christ is the Communion of Saints. One body, many members, connected – in communion.
thanks for your reply.
..or in the case of the RCC, THREE bodies. What about those who are “in Christ” in “purgatory”? “One family in heaven and earth”, and in purgatory?
No, not three bodies, not two bodies, but one body. Where we are as members of the Body of Christ does not sever our membership in the Body of Christ nor our relationship nor connection to and communion with all the other saints.
That’s the point of the whole post you replied to. Read it again if needed.
Really?
Matthew 11:18-19 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."
And Luke 7:33-35
Matthew 9:10-12 10And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mark 2:15-17 15And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Luke 5:29-31 29And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them. 30And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?"
Funny, I don't see anywhere in those passages where Jesus denied drinking with the tax collectors and sinners at their homes.
Besides, it doesn't say that Jesus didn't swap beers in each other's garage, so we can presume that He did.
Now prove he didn't.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body. 31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
NO!
Yuck.....
What? We wouldn’t look spiffy? ;)
You know I’m just kidding.
:D
Hoss
lol!
The confusion is not mine.
“And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.”
This indicates praying to Saints is something that is taught to us by God's Word ... how???
You cannot have one body if the majority of its members are separated from the rest. If that were the case, there would be two bodies and one would not affect the other.
This teaches that we are to pray to anyone other than God....how?
You are very good at quoting scripture; however, the scripture you quote does not support your case! However, there are some very basic scriptures that DO indicate how to pray:
Matthew 6 -- "Pray then like this: Our Father....."
Not Mary.... not Saints, not Angels.
John 14 -- Christ tells about going to his Father -- and asking for things in his name.... not Saints, not Mary, not Angels. Not the Cloud of Witnesses.
Again, I ask: where in scripture does God teach us to pray to anyone OTHER than Him?
Hoss
Maybe you would.
;)
I’m sorry, the discussion you entered into was about intercessory prayer, specifically asking Saints for theirs prayers for us.
I thought I made that clear in my first, quite lengthy, reply.
You’ve participated in that discussion and include another, and now, it seems you are completely off on the other. To the other one:
Except in the cases using “pray” meaning ask, we are pray to God only. If, for example i pray to St. Mary saying “pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death.” I mean I am asking St. Mary for her prayers on my behalf: her intercessory prayer.
I might also “pray’ to you for your intercessory prayers. The issue of whether we do so to saints in heaven as well as saints on earth is part of the discussion of the communion of saints, which was part of the intercessory prayer/communion of saints discussion you entered into with your first post to me.
And concerning which I spent considerable time going into the scripture, creed and theology; thinking that this was the topic you wished to engage in.
However, I can only guess at this point, you don’t wish to continue that discussion, meaning my time was wasted.
So... Nevermind.
Some think that the truth will be determined on these threads or if they can manage to drive the Catholics from the Forum. They couldn't be more wrong. As I reminded one of them earlier on this thread: The Truth is. It cannot be declared by you or your "church" (or what ever the gang you meet with on Sunday's calls itself), it is not determined by rules of evidence, convincing rhetoric, lame excuses, gotcha questions, ping-list dog-piles, precedent, moderators or errors in argument by Catholics. It simply is and is immutable. It doesn't require a psychic to predict that sometime in the next 50 years you will know the Truth.
Well not after Dorothy's house lands on you.
Matthew 8:20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."
The confusion is not mine.Debatable.
Yeah but I heard that if you wear the spiffy stuff and have a cool ring you become infallible if you just talk about doctrine and important stuff.
Romans 8:26-27 26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Hebrews 7:22-25 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
St. Paul also wrote:
“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people.”
Is it common for Protestants, or those in your pile on, to reject or diminish intercessory prayer?
Ah, modernists...
Then there is Christ’s direction to:
“pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven…”
I can only conclude you are in a minimalist mode for prayer as well.
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.