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.
Now a return slap from St. Cyprian of Carthage:
“One cannot have God as his father, who does not have the Holy Catholic Church as his mother”
How many to be exact? Where'd you find that out? Source? Or are you just parroting the party line again?
Unity within Catholicism is one of the biggest jokes going.
There is no unity within Catholicism. Catholics are in no position to point fingers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2678253/posts?page=357#357
rogator: “In a manner of speaking it is correct.
Catholics look on diocesan bishops (Catholic and Orthodox) as the successors of the apostles who founded the particular church of their locale. In this manner a person could be a member of the Church of Corinth, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Tucson or Pittsburgh.
Those of us who prefer Roman Catholic (actually Latin Catholic) are emphasizing our connection with the Roman Pontiff rather than the (e.g.) Maronite or the Melkite Patriarch.
Emphasizing the connection with the particular church rather than the Roman Church is IME common among very liberal Catholics and liberal bishops, many of whom actually see Roman Catholic as a derogatory term.”
Not to mention the different flavors of Catholicism such as.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect
Sects
Roman Catholic sects
There are many groups outside the Roman Catholic Church which are regarded as Catholic sects, such as the Community of the Lady of All Nations, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the Philippine Independent Church, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, the Free Catholic Church, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, and others.
The Sodalitium Christianae Vitae started in Lima, Peru, has multiple cases of psychological abuses experienced by youth that were attracted to the movement.[16]
There is also Russian orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic (Egyptian) to name a few more.
They most certainly do not adhere to the doctrinal position established by Rome on a number of fronts which many FRoman Catholics consider critical to Catholic faith.
When one obeys the gospel of Christ by believing (Acts 15:7), repenting of sins (Acts 3:19; 17:30), confessing the Lord (Rom. 10:10; Matt. 10:32), and being immersed in the name of Christ in order to receive the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Mk. 16:16), the Lord adds him (i.e., the individual) to the church, the body of the saved universally (Acts 2:41,47). Hence, Christ's church is composed of members, not churches (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27). Being composed of members, one must think of the "brotherhood," not a "churchhood" (1 Pet. 2:17).
It would seem even the RCC disagrees with you as do many other “denominations” in agreement with each other.
“The Presbyterians -- not to mention three other Reformed churches -- reached agreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on mutual recognition of each other’s baptisms. If we agree that our baptisms are legitimate and in essence the same, we have become the same church. Really.” “The historic Common Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism, approved by the USCCB this week, marks the first formal ecumenical agreement the U.S. Catholics have entered with any other church. [http://ncronline.org/blogs/small-c-catholic/baptism-agreement-shows-all-christians-part-same-family]
It would seem that the “we are the only true church” the RCC spews is slowly dissolving into the “One world Church”. It was prophesied after all.
Show me the official Catholic source that says she died.
The denominations set up by men which people think that membership in or adherence to makes them Christian or somehow saved, is meaningless. Those denominations, ALL denominations, are organizations set up by men. They're RELIGIONS. They CANNOT save.
Christianity is not about religion, religious duties, religious anything. It's about a personal relationship with Christ, having been forgiven and adopted into His family as joint heirs with Christ by grace through faith.
Churches and denominations are about rules and regs and controlling the membership. Being in Christ is about being free. Whoever the Son has set free is free indeed.
John 8:31-36 31So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33They answered him, "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?"
34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Are you already forgiven for sins you haven’t repented?
I thought there was only one Catholic Church. You mean the RCC and the Orthodox aren’t both part of the ONE? Surely there can’t be disagreement can there?
Wrong again.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Take scripture in context. Jerusalem was the First Church of Christendom, hence “mother church”, different meaning
They are the ONE, but there was a separation in 1054. The reasons were mostly political, and are being worked out.
Read the ProtoEvangalian of James.
Recognizing the validity of a baptism doesn’t mean we are all gonna sit down and sing KUMBAYA. It just means the baptism is the correct form, aka: In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Bible was created and put together by the ONE TRUE CHURCH.
(not by numerous Protestant sects)
It was never intended to replace or refute Holy Tradition.
It was never intended to be interpreted by individuals, but by the Holy Church.
Didn’t read it did you? They are recognizing all baptisms as membership into Christ’s church. It’s leading up to the One World Religion.
You mean the one that claims there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, as with Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome? You mean the one that claims to be written by Jesus brother James but clearly illustrates that whoever wrote it was unfamiliar with Jewish customs unlike the real James, brother of Christ?
Do you even read the scripture your trying to tell me the meaning of?
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
The verse above it distinguishes which Jerusalem it’s talking about.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
If you don’t know scripture any better then that why do you even attempt to enter these discussions? And don't try to tell me to take scripture in context when you can't even understand the scripure we are dealing with.
“One cannot have God as his father, who does not have the Holy Catholic Church as his mother”
St Cyprian??? Never heard of him...But I see from your quote that he's someone I wouldn't waste 20 seconds with...
I am forgiven, period.
I have repented of my sins and am a new creature in Christ.
It doesn’t mean that I’ll never sin again, it means that I am free of the penalty of the sin. It’s not on again, off again Christianity based on works.
If salvation were based on whether a person repented of each and every individual sin which they committed and whether or not they repented of each and every individual one, there’s not a person on the planet who could be saved. Nobody is capable of repenting of each and every individual sin because nobody is capable of recognizing and remembering each and every individual sin they ever committed in their lives.
When a person turns to God in repentance and faith all his sins are forgiven and he is made a new creature in Christ. That person is clothed in the righteousness of Christ and God does not count his sins against him any more.
It’s a blanket legal pardon of ALL sin. Someone who has put their faith in Christ alone for salvation is God’s child, not to be thrown on the trash heap because they are not capable of being what someone else thinks is perfect.
Catholics don’t get that sin in the believers life only affects the reward they will get once they get to heaven and that reward is not heaven itself, it is above and beyond making it to heaven. Heaven is guaranteed because of the believers position of being in Christ.
Say what? You mean it was supposed to be written by the brother that Jesus didn't have?
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.