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.
So then, salvation is based on works. If you’re good enough, you get in. If not, you don’t.
Problem is, nobody can be good enough or Jesus wouldn’t have had to die.
If righteousness could be gained by the Law, Christ died for nothing.
Hi Mom-- I know, but the Magicsterium wasn't quoted, so I had a flash of hope that The Lord had softened a heart of stone. Guess not.
Hoss
I understand it just fine. YOU on the other hand.....oh well, “cast not your pearls....etc.”
You will be judged at the Day of Judgement. You will be judged on your actions. The Church has the power to bind or release souls. That is scriptural. You cannot reject Christ’s Church and escape judgement.
I am not “Roman” Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox Catholic.
If you reject the Church Fathers, those who struggled to preserve the faith of Christ, then Christ will reject YOU!
St. Cyprian of Carthage was a champion of the faith!
Saint Cyprian of Carthage Inspiration of Martyrs
In the baptism of water is received the remission of sins, in the baptism of blood the crown of virtues. Exhortation to Martyrdom, A.D. 252 or 257
The ancient city of Carthage was advantageously situated on the northern coast of Africa, where it thrusts out toward Sicily, and was the commercial queen of the western Mediterranean before it was destroyed by Rome in 146 B.C. By the year A.D. 200, when Saint Cyprian was born, it had recovered its status as a world metropolis and numbered among its citizens a sizeable Christian population.
Thascius Cyprianus came from a prominent pagan family. He excelled as an orator and, when still quite young, launched into a profitable career as a teacher of philosophy and rhetoric. He could well afford to indulge in all manner of worldly pleasures, but these gave him no lasting satisfaction and, through the writings of Tertullian, he became persuaded of the Christian faith. He doubted, however, that he could be “born again” and loosed from his habitual pagan ways, so he postponed baptism until the priest Caecilius assured him of the efficacy of God’s grace. When Cyprian was finally baptized, at the age of about 46, God granted him to experience the power of the Holy Spirit and he felt himself to be a new man. He gave away his possessions and so impressed people by his genuine conversion and virtuous way of life, that just two years later they clamored to have him made bishop.
During the reign of Emperor Philip “the Arabian” (244-249), the Church in Carthage enjoyed relative peace. Unfortunately, this allowed the Christians to become quite lax in the practice of their faith. They fell back into pagan ways: quarrelling, participating in pagan forms of amusement, dressing up in the latest fashions and, in general, setting their affections on things of the earth rather than on the things above-like so many Christians today. The new bishop reminded his flock of their high calling as followers of Jesus Christ, and exhorted them to behave accordingly. He carefully examined candidates for ordination and demanded that they undergo a thorough preparation. But it was not possible to amend the situation overnight, and when, a year later, Decius became emperor and unleashed a new wave of persecution, many of these lax Christians abjured their faith.
In this short time, Cyprian had already won respect as an able and wise leader of the Church, so that when Pope Fabian of Rome was martyred, his clergy turned to Cyprian for advice. Together with the Carthaginians, they persuaded him to go into hiding in order to preserve himself for further service to the Church. He remained in close contact with his flock, exhorting them in letters to turn to prayer as their only sure weapon, and entreating the priests to look out for the weak and to use whatever possessions he had left to help the poorer Christians resist the temptation of material advantage to join the pagans. In general, the persecution showed the danger of attachment to material possessions as many Christians, without any particular coercion, sacrificed to the idols in order to spare their lives and their property. This grieved the saint, but he was also concerned for the confessors, that their exploit not lead them into pride. “Now more than ever they must fear being caught in the devil’s nets, for he would fain attack the strong, desiring to avenge himself on those who brought him defeat [by their confession].”
Once the persecution abated, the question arose as to how the lapsed were to be received back into the Church. Some priests were so lenient as to accept the apostates back without repentance, and without any penance. Cyprian criticized such light-minded treatment, while cautioning against undue severity at the other extreme, as represented by the priest Novatian in Rome. The puritanical Novatian espoused the old doctrine of Montanism, claiming that the lapsed could never be reinstated. He persuaded so many of this heretical view as to cause a schism which agitated the Church for several centuries. Responding to this and other divisions which certain malcontents introduced into his flock, Cyprian wrote a treatise, “On the Unity of the Church,” containing his now famous dictum, “He cannot have God as father, who has not the Church as his mother.”
When, after the death of Decius in 251, Cyprian returned to Carthage, he tried to reestablish peace and unity in the Church. He convoked several councils where many troubling issues were resolved, including the subject of infant baptism.
Just as peace seemed to have settled upon the Church in Carthage, another misfortune struck: a plague broke out, daily carrying away several thousand victims. So great was the fear of contagion, that the infected were abandoned and the dead left unburied. St. Cyprian assembled the Christians and reminded them that the Lord commanded us to love our neighbor and to repay evil with good; he recalled the example of Jesus Christ, Who, while hanging on the Cross, prayed for His enemies. His words so inspired the Christians that they took upon themselves to care for the sick and the dead. Rich and poor, clergy and laity-all took part in this virtuous work: some looked after the sick, some helped financially, some took suffering people into their homes; confessors, who not long before had been tortured by the pagans and still bore the marks on their bodies, daily exposed themselves to danger in order to help their enemies. Such examples of self-sacrifice and love for one’s neighbor amazed the pagans, and many of them were converted. St. Cyprian shared in this labor, strengthening his flock with his example and his eloquent words. In his treatise, “On Mortality,” written at this time, he tried to direct their minds to the future, eternal life, pointing out the brevity and vanity of earthly life and the eternal glory promised to Christians.
“The Kingdom of God is drawing nigh, my beloved brethren,” he wrote. “The reward of life, the eternal joy of salvation, perpetual gladness, the lost paradise-this is what we shall inherit when this earthly life passes away. A heavenly, eternal glory will replace vain, worldly pleasures. Is this any time to be despondent or fearful? What room is there here for anxiety and solicitude? Who, in the midst of these things is trembling and sad, except he who is without hope and faith?”
“Even if this mortality conferred nothing else, it has done this benefit to Christians and to God’s servants, that we begin gladly to desire martyrdom as we learn not to fear death. These are the trainings for us, not deaths: they give the mind the glory of fortitude; by contempt of death they prepare for the crown.”
“. . . with a sound mind, with a firm faith, with a robust virtue, let us be prepared for the whole will of God: laying aside the fear of death, let us think on the immortality which follows. By this let us show ourselves to be what we believe, that we do not grieve over the departure of those dear to us, and that when the day of our summons shall arrive, we come without delay and without resistance to the Lord when He Himself calls us. And this, as it ought always to be done by God’s servants, much more ought to be done now-now that the world is collapsing and is oppressed with the tempests of mischievous ills; in order that we who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as a great advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible.” “We should ever and anon reflect that we have renounced the world, and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers. Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”
In 252, the emperor Gallus renewed the persecution of Christians. This time Cyprian decided not to leave. Anticipating a recurrence of earlier cruelties, he tried to prepare the Christians to stand fast. His exhortations to martyrdom contain admonitions and reassurances similar to those in his treatise, “On Mortality,” while holding up the further reward of the martyr’s crown:
“[Martyrdom] is a baptism greater in grace, more lofty in power, more precious in honor-a baptism wherein angels baptize-a baptism in which God and His Christ exult-a baptism after which no one sins any more-a baptism which completes the increase of our faith-a baptism which, as we withdraw from the world, immediately associates us with God.”
Gallus’s successor, the emperor Valerian, was at first sympathetic to the Christians, and for several years the Church enjoyed relative tranquility. It was during this time that St. Cyprian wrote a number of treatises which reflect his timeless and practical pastoral concerns: “On the Advantage of Patience,” “On Works and Alms,” “On Jealousy and Envy,” and “On Virginity.” But a member of Valerian’s court, the evilly ambitious Macrian, persuaded the emperor that the Christians were dangerous rivals and that their loyalty to the Church threatened the unity of the empire. The resulting persecution was directed primarily at the leaders of the Church, and in 257 Saint Cyprian was exiled to Curibis. There he had a vision, indicating that a year later he would be martyred. And indeed, just a year later Cyprian was brought to trial. From the recorded court proceedings, it is evident that he impressed all by his wonderful scorn of suffering. When the proconsul announced the death sentence, many of his flock, who had risked their lives to come for a final blessing, cried out, “Let us die with him!” Cyprian was beheaded on September 14, 258, becoming the first hieromartyr of the Church of Carthage. The Christians reverently buried his holy remains, which, in the reign of Charlemagne, were taken to France. We tend to think that the lives of martyrs, while inspiring, are not particularly relevant to us. In fact, martyrdom is the very essence of the Christian life. Whether or not we think the coming of Antichrist and the persecution of Christians is imminent, we would do well to heed the exhortations of Saint Cyprian and practice the martyrs’ marvellous and soul-saving detachment from this world that we too might bravely welcome death and with confidence cry out with the Seer of Mysteries, “Come, Lord Jesus!”
Sources: Izbranniye Zhitiya Sviatikh by A. N. Bakhmeteva, Moscow 1872;History of the Church by Eusebius; “ Life of St. Cyprian” by Pontius the Deacon, and writings of St. Cyprian in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, Hendrickson, 1994.
I don’t recall that there is such a passage.
The Church accepts this for teaching, not as canon. This book tells of how the Mother of God was dedicated from birth for the task God had set for her.
Faith WITHOUT works is DEAD!!!!!
It is true that we are not good enough, but that doesn’t mean you do not strive to perform good works. Faith without works is dead.
Yes it is.
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
LOL There is a reason it wasn’t included in canon. And there is a reason they allowed it for teaching. They liked that parts that agreed with extra Biblical teaching of the church but knew that to include it with canon would make all of their canon anathema.
The RCC has also “accepted” the bodily assumption of Mary. Any scriptural evidence of that?
Uh, in what chapter and verse of God's preserved, Holy Word can I find this command???
You won’t.
It was used for teaching because the story of the life of the Blessed Mother of God is important, and that story agreed with the oral teachings of the Apostles, (known as Holy Tradition)and the teachings of the early Church. Just like the Gospel of Thomas, has valuable information, but certain parts of it are not accurate, etc.
Do you truly believe that just “believing” is enough?
Works are the evidence of faith. I do not believe one can separate one from the other. The Catholic Churches do not teach that one can work one’s way into heaven. That is a misconception many protestants have.
You need to know about Artemis Diana of Ephesus. Mary was declared “Mother of God” by the Christian church in about 431AD at Ephesus, Turkey where the temple to the goddess, Artemus Diana whose sacred title was “Queen of Heaven”. Artemus Diana was called “the mother of us all” by here worshipers. Check out the temple to the goddess Artemus Diana in Ephesus, Turkey. Read the account in Revelation 2 about the church at Ephesus. Thou hast left they first love” is referring to their allowing the worship of the goddess Artemus Diana to infiltrate the church. The Catholic Church has allowed the same to happen.
"Ephesus was an important religious city. The Temple of Diana (or Artemus, as the Greeks called her) was considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The goddess Diana was the patron of all the prostitutes and, with her many-bosomed image, represented fertility and sexuality. Many writers in ancient times described the immorality of the city.
"One pillar in the Ephesian economy was the production of silver images of Diana by the many silversmiths who plied their trade there. Devotees of this goddess brought much gain to the city (Acts 19:23-27). Black magic was also widely practiced in Ephesus."
The Madonna and child are fashioned after Isis and her son Horus. Another was Dmeter and her daughter Kore.
Another is Astarte, also known as Astarat and Astoreth both are incarnations of Ishtar and Inanna Semitic goddess worshiped by Syrians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Egyptians. Even King Solomon built a Temple to her near Jerusalem. Astarte was referred to in the Bible as “the abomination”.
1 Kings 11:5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
In 2 Kings God calls her an abomination. 2 Kings 23:13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
Jeremiah castigates the people for making offerings to the queen of heaven. Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Make no mistake. The RCC worship of Mary is pagan based, not scriptural based.
Negative. Protestants have been spewing that manure for 150 years, and this is no different.
Accept the fact that there is one true church. The one, the only, the original. “The REAL thing!”
Catholics DO NOT worship Mary, but we do recognize her as the mother of God.
"And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?" - Luke 1:43
You scratching around on the interned to find something, anything to impugn the Chruch doesn't in any way confound Catholic teaching nor change the hearts of any Catholics. Christianity is not the first faith to proclaim a virgin birth. Marduk, Perseus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha and Mithra are all purported to have been the product of virgin births. That doesn't in any way negate the Virgin Birth of Jesus, does it?
The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus was simply held in that city.
A great ecumenical council was held in Ephesus in 431, concerning whether the Virgin Mary might properly be called Theotokos, or bearer of God. The term had become popular in devotion and worship but was controversial. Many church leaders held that it was an appropriate title, reasoning that since Christ was both truly man and truly God, one could say Mary gave birth to God.
Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and his party believed the term “Theotokos” threatened the humanity of Christ and denigrated the greatness of God, and suggested Mary be called “Christotokos,” bearer of Christ, instead. The council decided in favor of the Theotokos title, which has been used for Mary ever since. Nestorius was harrassed by mobs in Ephesus throughout the council, and exiled to Antioch afterwards.
Therefore anyone who denies the title “Theotokos” is a Nestorian, and is committing heresy. Plain and simple.
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.