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.
Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
Craft? What craft? How about all the trinkets and necklaces (Rosary) dedicated to the goddess Diana. Just do a little research on the image of the Ephesian Diana.
Revelation 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Daniel 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
It’s no coincidence that the veneration of Mary as the “queen of heaven” started in Ephesus. God calls it an abomination.
And that is exactly the problem. so many Roman Catholics are not even sure of what the church doctrine is.
I was CONVERTED to Orthodoxy, and studied for the Priesthood, and am very familiar with Catholic Doctrine.
Veneration as “Queen of Heaven” is strictly a Western Church Tradition. Be careful with Revelation. It is only read in my church once a year. It made it into the canon by ONE vote.
The keys to interpreting it were lost when St. John died.
I would not dare to try personally, because it is way to cryptic.
In the Eastern Church, The Virgin Mary is NEVER depicted without her son in her arms.
But of those who proclaim that they were once Catholic we very little of knowledge or understanding of Catholic doctrine or history displayed in their posting histories that we would expect to see of junior high Catechumens. We can only conclude that they are either incredibly obtuse or lying about their pasts.
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" - Matthew 7:16
"The keys to interpreting it were lost when St. John died."??? SO, the Catholic Church has the keys to the kingdom, but not the keys to unlock THE Book that shows the reader the things that are going to happen to bring that Kingdom in?
"Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the saying of the prophecy of this book." Rev. 22:7.
"And he saith unto me,(John), SEAL NOT the saying of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." Rev. 22:10.
The truths of Revelation were to be understood and kept by all, therefore, they are NOT "hidden truths". They are simple and clear to all who will believe them, but hidden from them who refuse to believe...see (2 Cor. 4:4).
I was born and raised RC,,private catholic schools and college.. at the time I left the church I lectored, played in the folk group, served on the liturgy committee, taught CCD,and gave 'talks" on womens retreats ...
I know what Catholic Doctrine is.. and I know it is apostate ...I know that Catholics do not even know what the gospel is.. the very foundation of Christianity and they are clueless..
Sometimes you don't even need to see the fruit. The compost is enough to let you know something is steaming around you..LOTS of steaming compost yielding 2000 years of rotten fruit and flies. Perhaps those who have come out of her just got tired of smelling the rot all around.
Of course not. Check out Indrani, the wife of the Indian god Indra. Then check out the goddess mother and son in Babylon.
In Egypt, the Mother and the Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. In India Isi and Iswara; in Asia Cybele and Deoius; in Pagan Rome, as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or Jupiter, the boy; in Greece, as Ceres, the Great Mother, with the babe at her breast, or as Irene, the goddess of Peace, with the boy Plutus in her arms.
The worship of mother and child originated in Babylon.
Sure couldn't tell it from the error rate in your posts.
That unattributed cut and paste (http://aletheia.consultronix.com/7.html) might have some relevance if Catholics actually worshiped Mary.
From the moment in Gen. 3:15, that God said He would put enmity between Satan and the woman, and between his seed and her seed, Satan has known there would be a woman who would bring forth a son to bruise his head. That he would be utterly crushed and eternally defeated. With that in mind, is it any wonder that Satan, as the imitator of God, would set about to have a satanic woman who gives birth to a son and causes all who are deceived to worship Satan through that mother and son? Hence, Babylon, Nimrod, Ishtar, etc. etc. throughout history. The plan was hatched in Gen. 3 and continues to this day. Different names, plan the same.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
Source?
Horse Hockey. and Heresy.
Looks like even Mary would have denounced the veneration of her doesn’t it? I’m sure she was familiar with the pagan practices and would have been mortified to see what the RCC has done.
I think this has gone about as far as I want it to go.
Anyone who chooses to defame or spout heresy insulting the Blessed Virgin Mary, will no longer get a response from me.
And the more one studies the connections that the worship of Mary has with pagan practices the more obvious it becomes. The direct ties to Ephesus and Diana are telling.
Oh yea? Well I have been around RC’s like that all my life. Just because one is raised in the Church doesn’t mean you truly understand the theology. I was raised Protestant, and God in his mercy brought me to the True Church.
Frankly, I don’t give any apostate from the faith much credibility.
I had never been to that site before. Interesting site tho. Your accusation is indicative of the weak defense you 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.