Daily Planet religion correspondent Media Halfways reports that Nilsson Publishers (A division of Nilsson/Schmilsson, a subsidiary of Rambling House) has announced the publication of a special edition of the Holy Bible that takes the inspiration for its cover from a recent issue of Time magazine.
The special Sola Scriptura edition features a mirror (made of lightweight reflective Mylar) affixed on the front cover, above the words "Bible Scholar of the Year".
Nilsson Publishers’ CEO Miles Blandish told the Daily Planet "This is part of an ongoing effort to give the Holy Scriptures new relevance by presenting them in a hip, culturally aware way that grabs the attention of the public. We realize that part of our mission is to stay current, to keep up with trends… to be phat and dope and poppin’ fresh.".
Time magazine recently revealed their "Man of the Year" issue for 2006, with a mirrored cover that reflects the reader’s face. Blandish admitted "Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn’t thought of this before. It fits in so well with the idea of Sola Scriptura… what we are saying with this cover is; Who should you really count on to interpret the Bible? The answer? It’s right there on the cover!… You! Why rely on someone else who might have it all wrong, when you can get it straight from the horse’s mouth?… so to speak.".
Nilsson publishes mainly for the Evangelical Christian market. Evangelical Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to answer any question of faith, and that any sincere believer can understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.
So, what does the Bible mean?… "Whoa, whoa!" Blandish answers when asked about the meaning of Scripture "… that’s not for me to say… you have to decide for yourself. The question is, what does it mean… to you?".
The Sola Scriptura edition is available at bookstores, or on the Nilsson/Schmilsson website, for the cost of one million Quatloos (hardback).
Boy! That hits the nail on the head, dont it?
Excellent! That about says it all, doesn’t it?
Tim J.,
You better register a trademark and fast!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
You (bible scholar that you are) can jump into the fire, but you’ll never be free.
The above comment is as clear as the commenter’s handle.
bill912,
The above commenter was talking to his Sola Scriptura edition, not us.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Also available in a loose leaf ring binder edition to allow the wise reader to decide on a book-by-book basis which books should be included.
DIY canon by the person most inspired – You! not some corrupt Papist institution.
I recall reading somewhere a symbolic representation of the fall of the angels. In this representation, all of the angels were created initially good and so were able to see God in a direct sense. When Satan and other angels turned against God, however, it is as though they were bound up in a mirrored room and each could thereafter see only his own reflection. The idea of selfishness appears somehow encoded in this representation.
I don’t remember where I read this figurative representation, but if there be any truth to it, then this mirror-covered Bible would seem a spooky thing indeed.
Brilliant!
I have exercised my authority to read and interpreted holy scripture. I have decided it says the Catholic Church is the true Church. I hereby surrender such authority to that Church.
*grin*
Coming soon: the Choose Your Own Adventure Bible.
You are: a first century Jewish man hailing (with your mom) from the podunk town of Nazareth. Your teachings have fascinated a bunch of fishermen, tax collectors and ex-prostitutes, while at the same time causing the constabulary to drum the fingers on their breast-plates in nervous silence and royally hacking off the local religious leaders.
Your quest: to save the world!
Your latest quandry: Recently, you’ve made some statements about eating your flesh that have confused some of your followers, caused others to walk, and again hacked off the local religious leaders.
Your choices:
One: Stand by your statements and, hey, what the heck, emphasize them a couple of time using words that reflect the animal nature of “gnawing,” etc. You said it and you meant it, darn it! If you choose this option, turn to page 777.
Two: Rephrase it in a way that makes clear the symbolic nature of what you said. End with saying, “Hey guys, come back. I was jus’ playin’ wi’choo.” If you choose this option, turn to page 13.
Three: Change the subject and say, “Isn’t it great that we agree with all these wacky Pagans? I mean, truth is relative, right guys? There are no absolutes, darn it. Not a single one.” You then join hands and start singing folk songs to distract them from the absolute statement you just made. If you choose this option, turn to page 666.
Four: Shrug, sit down in the dirt, assume a lotus position and stare at your navel. If you choose this option, turn to page Q.
It would be very easy to make a Sola Fide edition, completely non existent at zero cost. The vendor does not have to sell it and the believer does not have to buy it.
Very apologetic. An example to evangelists everywhere.
Or was that to Count Tilly’s troops?
Tim,
Protestantism doesn’t teach that the Bible is sufficient to answer any question on faith, rather sufficient for those issues of faith we need to know:
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (Westminster Confession of Faith)
destined to be a classic for sure.
The spoof, not the product.
Tim J.,
Great post. I love your comments in the comboxes, too, btw.
But, I’ve also got to applaud Jared. As a big fan of Edward Packard’s “Choose Your Own Adventures” books, I thought Jared’s comment was great. (I tried to convince my daugher to buy some CYOA books just this afternoon!)
so — your quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith is something we don’t need to know?
0:)
Other than the Nilsson/Schmilsson rhyme, is there some deeper meaning to the name Nilsson that I’m missing?
Jeb-
Your comment, which I appreciate, none the less highlights an element of Protestant thought that I NOW see (being an adult convert) as a profound deficiency, that is; the tendency toward minimalism.
Let’say (for the sake of argument) that a sincere reader CAN (with the help of the Holy Spirit) glean everything necessary for salvation from the Bible alone (and leaving aside the question of who we look to even to tell us what the Bible IS).
Is that ALL that the Lord desires for us in this life? What if (by ignoring the remainder of the Deposit of Faith… the Sacraments, the Magisterium, etc… in other words, by missing the Church) we are saved, but only “as through fire”?
Do we REALLY want to define the Christian faith in terms of the LEAST we can possibly get by with in order to gain salvation? Is faith alone sufficient for salvation? Sure, in a pinch… but isn’t it likely that God wants MORE for each of us than to just limp into heaven smelling of smoke?
Protestantism has taken a kernel of Truth (that faith alone CAN save in a pinch, which the Church acknowledges) and has isolated and universalized it in such a way as to exclude every other aspect of the Gospel. Faith alone might save a person, but God wants to transform us, to sanctify us, and to unite us to himself TOTALLY, even in this life. This requires the environment of the Church Christ established, and access to the whole deposit of faith. We cannot even be baptized outside the Church… and Baptism is only the gate!
A person – sincere or not – MIGHT be able to find salvation through reading the Bible alone, but he/she also might NOT be able to. This is abundantly clear… there are mountains of evidence to demonstrate it. The sincere, prayerful searching of the Bible alone is simply no guarantee – even of salvation. Where do you think cults come from?
We need to think of the faith in terms of ALL that God desires for us in this life – not just the MINIMUM required for SOME to be saved – and that means looking to the Church Christ established.
Oh, did NO ONE get my Nilsson reference?
What’s The Point?
Tim J.
My dad is a big music buff.
So put the lime in the coconut and drink ’em both up ’cause I can’t live if livin’ is without you!
Okay, Dr. Eric, I feel a little better.
But what about Media Halfways?
I can’t hear you, Tim; everybody’s talkin’ at me.
Actually, someone earlier on DID get the Nilsson reference, but I won’t say who.
Pilgrim’s Regress
And your point?
And this is relevant to the post HOW… ?
We seem to have a troll, Tim, using various handles and posting on several threads. Has Jimmy lent you Glamdring?
I guess he has. While you’re at it, there’s one on “My General Christmas Present.”
The above unrelated posts have been deleted. Dumping lengthy, irrelevant comments into the thread is rude enough… the bigotry makes it downright obnoxious.
If you really have a burr under your saddle about a particular topic, get your own blog.
Any similar comments will also be deleted.
At least as far as my posts are concerned, “You shall not pass!”.
Sorry, bill, I can only get medieval on comments to posts I have written myself.
Of course all of this presumes the reader can actually READ, and afford a Bible, and has time to read it… The VAST majority of Christians through the ages had no such luxury.
Given all the failings in my life, if someone where to give me this Bible I would likely feel a bit unnerved. IF I were my own best expert, I would be in trouble.
“Other than the Nilsson/Schmilsson rhyme, is there some deeper meaning to the name Nilsson that I’m missing?”
Also, Margaret, “Nilsson” is a play on the name of a HUGE real-life bible publisher.
Tim J.
Was I right about Pilgrim’s Regress?
Oh, Mr. Tim, are you referring to Thomas Nelson?
Tim,
Protestants don’t deny that God wants to transform Christians. As the WCF says:
“They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]”
As far as minimalism goes, the whole emphasis of contemporary Roman Catholicism toward non-Catholics and non-Christians is minimalism writ large. If, as the pope believes, the Koran is the “holy book of a great religion,” then isn’t Rome preaching a minimlist view of truth?
In my years as an Evangelical, I have never heard the “minimalism” that I was taught as a Rome Catholic growing up (be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc.)
“be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc.”
That is not Church teaching, Jeb. You know that.
And, YES, Dr. Eric, well done!
I remember laughing so hard at the first chapter of Pilgrims Regress, because it was so TRUE to the way I was brought up.
It may not be C.S. Lewis’s best, but it is worthwhile and entertaining. I still find it very relevant.
Also, Jeb, most Protestants (I can’t say all) look at salvation as one event, and sanctification another.
In Catholic thought, they are different aspects of the same process.
We are saved THROUGH sanctification, so “doing your best” is no small part of that.
In my years as an Evangelical, I have never heard the “minimalism” that I was taught as a Rome Catholic growing up (be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc.)
The tragedy of another catholic chased away from the church by the liberal we’re-all-the-same ilk.
Jeb, you’ve been reading this blog for a while. You know this isn’t what the church teaches but what some self appointed reformers were/are trying to do to the church. This is new to Catholism but not to Protestents. cf: Unitarian church and many others. You’re smart enough to filter through the misguided Protestent trash, why the insistence this is what the catholic church is about. That’s like saying all catholics cant spell just cause Slowboy cant.
Tim,
But I think an organization should be evaluated by what it teaches and what it permits to be taught. For example, Benedict and JP II teach evolution and higher critical views of Genesis. They permit people to teach at Catholic universities and seminaries who deny the historicity of Genesis and Adam and Eve. (One member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission said that Genesis 1-11 is as historical as Little Red Riding Hood.)
Shouldn’t I as a Christian look at what the Bible says about creation and compare it to what these men teach/taught?
Okay, as another Protestant in the group, I’d just like to say that I think that this post was actually funny.
Jeb, there is no uniform agreement among Catholics or Protestants about how to read Genesis. I’m curious to know your sources, though, on who said those things. (“One member of the Pontifical Commission…” tells me nothing. “Billy Bob Jim Joe Roy Cardinal Timmins of Appalacia said to Us Magazine on December 8, 2004…” would tell me more.) To say that the Bible is infallible does not require an anally-retentivly close reading of the Creation account. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old as scientists estimate, would that shake your faith in God? Would that decimate the texts? Or could there be alternative interpretations of the words that would allow for that time frame to exist?
I agree with the Popes. We should study the Creation account closer and compare it with the science finds instead of just immediately jumping on the defensive the way things have happened in the past. Science is more prevalent than Christianity in society now and we should treat the situation according, “turning the other cheek” as Jesus commands and trying to be the bigger person here.
In summary, when you make a deliberately inflammatory comment like that, please cite your sources. I don’t recall the Catholic Church ever supporting evolution, just calling for additional study. I assume that they want to study the position in order to better refute it.
“Shouldn’t I as a Christian look at what the Bible says about creation and compare it to what these men teach/taught?”
Do what I do, Greg; read the Bible AND the encyclicals and conciliar documents, AND the Catechism, and THEN compare to what you hear from some priest or bishop.
I try not to listen to kooks, whether nominally Protestant or Catholic.
Not that I think a non-literal reading of Genesis is kooky!
Faithful Christians may understand Genesis in various ways, as long as a few basics are maintained.
Oookay. So lets look at Adam and Eve and family. So they have kids. 2 boys to be exact, per the story. Eventually, one runs off (more like, is ran off) and starts having kids. Wait. Having kids? Having kids with who? Another child of Adam and Eve? But, wait. It isn’t said in the story that Adam and Eve had other kids other than their boys. So … there’s a problem with the story here. How do we solve it? Do we say that Adam and Eve had kids other than their boys (even though, per the story, this would not be the case)? But, then, what makes these boys any more important and why had all their other kids run off before hand? OR could it be that perhaps Adam and Eve are representative of something but are not, in themselves, the whole story – just the most important part(s) of some larger story mashed together in a synoptic story?
The point is, once you start explaining the story to be something other than what is literally written on the page, any number of good interpretations become valid – and this rule applies to the whole story, not just bits and pieces. However, there has to be something in the story itself that remains in those interpretations. In the case of Adam and Eve, it’s that mankind screwed up in the beginning, and we’ve been paying for it ever since because of the sins of our fathers. Adam and Eve establish the moral and spiritual setting of the rest of the salvation story.
Now, is it important that Adam and Eve were the first? Thematically, yes. Literally … well … Cain’s wife had to come from somewhere, and it would seem (since Adam and Eve’s progeny are of some significance) that they were not from Adam and Eve. So … I’m gonna have to so say no on the question of literal-ness. And if I’m going to say no there, then I’m going to have to say no about the literalness of Genesis 1 and 2 – but that’s not to say that the themes of the story are not important.
Haven’t we already had this conversation before somewhere?
It’s about time I was recognized as the Biblical Scholar of the Year!!!
Tim,
But as I pointed out: it is the last 2 popes who have higher critical views of Genesis. The curent pope denies that Paul wrote the pastorals and says there are two Isaiahs, etc. Is it possible that these men are wrong?
It can be possible that they are wrong. The pope is protected from teaching error in Faith and Morals ONLY when he uses phrases like We define… We teach… It is binding…
The Church and the Pope very rarely get involved in daily biblical exegesis. And in defining something, the parameters are very narrow and limited. Don’t expect that everything that comes from Rome is the official teaching. Look to the Councils and Ex Cathedra statements.
“The curent pope denies that Paul wrote the pastorals”
I really doubt that.
Tim,
See Called to Communion at page 67. He says that Acts and the Pastorals belong “the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . .” Pretty clearly a post-apostolic date for Luke and/or the Pastorals.
Tim,
See Called to Communion at page 67. He says that Acts and the Pastorals belong “the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . .” Pretty clearly a post-apostolic date for Luke and/or the Pastorals.
Tim,
He is even more explicit in Principles of Catholic Theology at p. 101:
“they [liberals] regard with suspicion everything that comes after Paul — especially, then the writings of St. Luke and a fortiori the pastoral epistles.”
You can view these pages on Amazon.
“It isn’t said in the story that Adam and Eve had other kids other than their boys.”
Oh really? Then how come it says in Gen. 5:4 that Adam “had sons AND DAUGHTERS”? Just because birth of the daughters isn’t mentioned in Gen. 4 doesn’t mean the daughters weren’t born.
As for Pope Benedict’s obviously non-ex-cathedra personal opinionabout St. Paul’s pastoral epistles, yes, he does seem to doubt that St. Paul wrote them. However, that’s his personal opinion and many Christians disagree with him, including pretty much all Christians prior to the 1800s and 1900s.
Jeb Protestant,
May I ask what dates you infer when, then Cardinal Ratzinger, writes “the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . .”.
What dates do you give to the pastoral epistles of the New Testament?
What authority do you accept that gives those dates?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
I date the NT prior to 70AD.
If all we had to go on was Ratzinger’s statement in Called to Communion, it would be sufficiently ambigous. But given the other statement and his general opposition to conservative dating/authorship (e.g., his statements on Genesis, Daniel and Isaiah) I think we can safely say he doesn’t accept Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.
The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He most likely died toward the end of the reign of Nero. That means, obviously, that they were written sometime prior to June 68AD (or 68 CE as Catholics often call it today).
The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Jeb,
By your statement here, clearly, you do not know the Catholic Church’s position on the Pauline corpus. Furthermore, you need to go back and study how the bible came to be in the first place. Or didn’t you know the Catholic Church was responsible for putting together the books of the bible in the first place?
…or 68 CE as Catholics often call it today
C.E. is an invention of the secular folks, not Catholics, for goodness sake. A.D. was, in fact, what Catholics have always used since — you can tell by the very writings of the Early Church Fathers, which can attest not only to this but to the very Catholicity of the Early Church itself!
How many more strawmen are you going to throw at our way?
Esau,
This post was started by Tim who said Protestants were, in effect, putting themselves in place of the church as authoratative interpreters of the Bible.
But as I have shown, Benedict has placed himself in opposition to the Catholic church (up to say c. 1950) by claiming Paul didn’t write the Pastorals. (Even if it is just his opinion, he held it and taught it while heading the Congregation for the Faith.)
So why aren’t Catholics calling on Benedict to stop engaging in private interpretation of the Bible?
Catholics can’t have it both ways.
Jeb,
The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
With all due respect, you’re begging the question. How do you know this to be true?
BC,
We know that Jesus lived, that He rose from the dead, the He fulfilled OT scripture and that he said that He would lead His followers into truth. Paul was a follower who taught and wrote authoratatively. The Pastorals are said to be written by him and that is the testimony of the early Christian writers. So that’s good enough for me. You may claim that it is question begging and circular, but as van Til said, all reasoning is circular. You’ve got to jump in and start somewhere.
But I would ask you, when did the the Catholic Church ever teach what its leaders teach today: the Pastorals are not from Paul, but they are inspired nonetheless.?
Esau,
This post was started by Tim who said Protestants were, in effect, putting themselves in place of the church as authoratative interpreters of the Bible.
But as I have shown, Benedict has placed himself in opposition to the Catholic church (up to say c. 1950) by claiming Paul didn’t write the Pastorals. (Even if it is just his opinion, he held it and taught it while heading the Congregation for the Faith.)
So why aren’t Catholics calling on Benedict to stop engaging in private interpretation of the Bible?
Catholics can’t have it both ways.
JEB:
I appreciate your honesty and a certain fairness in your post, though. This is the kind of dialogue I appreciate from my Protestant brethren where there is a 2-way communication (in spite of the difference of opinion) that, in fact, seems to exist unlike with some other Protestant folks who, in spite of all the evidence, ignores the other side.
I’ve got to admit, at the very least, you have acknowledged some level of understanding of the Catholic Church as it concerns the Canon of Scripture.
I respect that.
I think what you might want to do is read up on the works of Cardinal Ratzinger through the Pontifical Council as it regards Scripture.
I don’t have the particular work that I have in mind with me on the computer I’m currently using.
The particular one I know of is the one where Cardinal Ratzinger actually also treats the subject of the historical Jesus as well.
I will find out when I come back from Christmas break.
At any rate, God bless you, Jeb and have a great Christms, brutha!
Jeb,
When were the above books written, before or after Benedict’s ascension to the Papacy?
Eric,
Before, but I believe that Called to Communion was written when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Jeb,
The Pastorals are said to be written by him and that is the testimony of the early Christian writers. So that’s good enough for me. You may claim that it is question begging and circular, but as van Til said, all reasoning is circular. You’ve got to jump in and start somewhere.
You say that you want to start with the testimony of the early Christians. OK. I think that is a good place to start. By the way, do you agree that you’re relying on Tradition?
But the real question is how do you accept what they say about Paul’s authorship of the pastoral letters, while at the same time rejecting what the earliest Christians say about Rome and the papacy? Do you accept or reject what the earliest Church fathers have to say about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
What standard do you use to judge?
BC,
In relying on historical evidence, I’m relying on “tradition.” For example, part of the reason I believe Jesus lived is that I accept Jewish tradition on this matter (Josephus, etc.). Obviously in so doing I am not bound to believe everything they believed about him.
I am not, however, relying on “Tradition.” Church Tradition on the matters you reference (and I don’t completely agree with your interpretation of these issues) is a different question.
If you are all too young to remember that Nilsson/Schmilsson was a fantastic album (NOT CD) from the 1970’s then you aren’t old enough to have studied enough of the Bible yet to pontificate here.
The Catholic Church gave everyone the Bible, the protestants came along and gutted it, and now the protestants think they know more about it than the Church. Try again. We have the years of experience behind us (about 1,500 more years than the protestants), and we have the early Church Fathers, who knew those who knew Jesus. That pretty much speaks for the Church as the final authority.
Of course, you are free to believe what you like, but first, get a copy of Nilsson/Schmilsson, and listen to it with old-fashioned headphones with the real pad seals around your ears, and then lighten up and learn to listen to the voice of experience, your Church.
Peace of Christ,
TCN
Jeb,
I will accept that you are relying on “tradition” and not “Tradition.” (Although such a distinction is potentially meaningless without some level of precision and a common understanding). In that regard, it appears that you are using some notion of “historical evidence” in your understanding of “tradition.”
As you point out, you will not believe everthing that Jewish history says about the person Jesus, but the fact that Jewish history says anything at all about him is strong evidence that he did, in fact, exist. In legal terms, this would be roughly analagous to a “statement against interest,” which is deemed inherently more reliable and trustworthy as evidence than a self-serving statement.
My question is this: When evaluating historical evidence, or tradition as you call it, what standard do you use to judge what to accept and not to accept?
Recognizing the potential difficulty of addressing that question in the abstract, apply it to the canon of Scripture. It would seem to me that a late first century Jewish determination of what is in the Jewish Scriptures (Christian Old Testament) does not have the same indicia of reliability as the Jewish history acknowledging the existence of Jesus. They have, by that point in time, a different agenda and a different world view than late first century Christians. A determination by them at that point in time as to what should be included in their canon does not necessarily coincide with what a first century Christian would regard as canonical. There is certainly evidence that Christ and the authors of the New Testament regarded books outside the as-yet-to-be-determined Jewish canon as scriptural.
So again, what measure do you use when evaluating the historical evidence to determine what is or is not in the canon of Sacred Scripture?
Bro. Cadfael-
In your estimation, what would you say was the measure a say- jew 50 to 60 years prior to the birth of Christ would employ to determine what was or was not a part of the O.T cannon?
You know, gentlemen, in your never-ending desire to dump on evangelical Protestants, you reveal your own spiritual and intellectual laziness.
You dismiss any attempt by individual Christians to read and study Scripture for themselves as essentially the chance to incubate new Luthers. Instead, you defer all intellectual endeavors to a coterie of self-appointed ecclesiastics whose understanding of Scripture is, at best, tenuous.
Exhibit A: Pope JPII’s single-handed attempt to dismiss centuries of teaching concerning capital punishment for murder in favor of his own revisionist, abolitionist, immoral stance.
Exhibit B: The confusion of “vengeance” with the application of legitimate due process concerning capital punishment.
Exhibit C: The failure to distinguish the application of due process with vigilante mob action concerning capital punishment.
Exhibit D: An over-reliance on the CCC and the Lectionary as sources, neither of which are divinely inspired in, of and by themselves.
Exhibit E: The refusal to see Islam as anything but a fellow “monotheistic” religion (when a detailed study of Scripture would show that Allah and Yahweh are not the same).
Exhibit F: The failure to understand the fact that the Mosaic Law is a multi-faceted entity that reflects God’s moral mind and fundamental ethical demands for humanity — a fact that St. Paul does not deny even in his letter to the Romans.
Exhibit G: The universally pathetic homiletics and catechesis within Catholicism.
What you refuse to see is that any and all Christians have the obligation to make faith their own. Doing so necessarily involves studying Scripture for oneself, asking questions and going beyond the cliches that permeate the world of institutionalized (and bastardized) Christianity across the board — cliches that the instutionalized church promotes instead of a true understanding of faith.
Joseph D’Hippolito,
What you refuse to see is that the Church’s authority comes from God and not you.
Christ Himself institutionalized Christianity. Your main complaint is that He did not give you the authority you desire.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Joseph,
I was going to respond, but your strawman was so weak it had dissipated in the wind by the time I got to the combox.
Erick,
I imagine he would have deferred to the Jewish authorities on such matters.
Inocencio-
Isn’t your argument rather circular, being that the only way you “know” that the Church’s authority comes from God—-is that your Church tells you so?.
You dismiss any attempt by individual Christians to read and study Scripture for themselves as essentially the chance to incubate new Luthers.
“No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”
Guess where I got that?
(Note that prophecy means inspired speech — and all Scripture is inspired.)
Mary-
–” and all scripture is inspired”-
How do you know?.
Erick,
Inocencio-
Isn’t your argument rather circular, being that the only way you “know” that the Church’s authority comes from God—-is that your Church tells you so?.
It might be, if that’s all there was. But you are ignoring the fact that two other authoritative sources, Scripture and Tradition, bear witness to the authority of the Church. If you accept any one of the three as true, it will lead you to the truth of the Church’s authority.
It is “circular” in the sense that if you reject all three, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, there is no “evidence” of the point. But in this case, where we can all agree on at least one of the three, it is not circular, but reinforced by the witness of the other two authoritative sources.
Bro. Cadfael-
I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church–again because Rome says so.
Is this still circular in nature?.
“How do you know?”
The Church taught us so.
The inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Trinity, Baptism, these are things that can be proven by Scripture but are not explicitly stated therein.
Without the Church Christ established to lead His followers, these teachings would not have been infallibly defined, protected from error, and transmitted through the centuries within and by Institutional Christianity.
Protestants who do not understand how much they owe the Catholic Church for all they love and hold dear about their own faith (save the relativism and disobedience) remind me of Liberals who think freedom is free (it comes without sacrifice and struggle).
Protestants, for all their evangelical zeal, never stand their ground. How is breaking off an ossified mega-church to start your own “pure and simple” new denomination any different than cutting and running?
A Protestant may feel all high and mighty when he gets in a Catholic’s face and waves pamphlets like “Mary’s Command” but what about his own church? If the pastor suddenly starts preaching heterodoxy, will the Protestant stay and fight for truth? Will he, in the interest of defending his fellow believers from the incursion of evil within the ranks of his church (the one correct denomination there was)?
No matter what he thinks he is going to do, unless he is convinced by the pastor that he is wrong, he ends up leaving to join another denomination or to start another denomination.
Divided, the only thing that awaits Protestantism is to be conquered.
And you can’t get more divided than a white Methodist church a block down the road from a black Methodist church.
Segregation by preference leads to segregation by culture and segregation by country, segregation by region, by state, by race, by political party, by class, by age, even by family name.
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through THEIR WORD, so that they may all be ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be like us, THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU SENT ME.” — Jesus
It is disingenuous in the extreme that the same people who thanklessly rob the treasury of faith to start their own denominations also mock the very institution that makes their life in faith possible.
There is not a Protestant on this earth who does not need to fall on his knees and thank God for Holy Mother Church.
Erick,
I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church–again because Rome says so.
No, because Scripture and Tradition say so.
Look at what Scripture says about the Church.
Look at what Tradition says about the Church.
They both bear witness to the teaching authority of the Church.
Is this still circular in nature?
If you refuse to look at what Scripture and Tradition say, and only look at what the Magisterium says about the Church, it would be circular. But that’s not how we approach the matter.
“I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church–again because Rome says so.
Is this still circular in nature?”
Circular to your what, erick?
How is “What is right I believe, What I believe is right because I say so.” Any LESS circular than what you accuse Institutionalized Christianity of?
erick,
Since we obviously disagree is there, in your understanding, an authority that we as followers of Christ must obey?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
StubbleSpark-
“The Church taught us so”.
Precisely my point !.
How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?.
erick,
How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?
How about answering our questions?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Erick,
How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting your own limited knowledge dictate your theology?
All of us combined don’t measure up to a St. Basil the Great, a St. Ignatius of Antioch (have you read what he wrote yet, he was martyred in AD 110?) a St. Leo the Great, a St. John Chrysostom, etc…
What makes you think that you have studied the Scriptures more than these guys? They had access to better manuscripts than you have. In fact some of them don’t exist any more? You should thank these guys for being some of the most premier theologians ever!
Erick,
I’m sure there’s nothing new here for you, but just in case, here are some of the high points (not proof texts) from Scripture and Tradition bearing witness to the authority of the Church:
Scripture:
The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tm 3:15). Jesus Christ built this Church upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus’ flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
Tradition (lived and handed on by the lives of those who lived according to its teachings, according to the example of Christ and the Apostles. See 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15):
“Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).
“Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same …And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world…For the Church preaches the truth everywhere…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V 20, 1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession of the succession, and assemble themselves…But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, shall recieve from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 26:2 (inter A.D. 180/199).
“The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Origen, First Principles 1,2 (c. A.D. 230).
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.” Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).
“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you.” Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).
How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?.
Because Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition confirm that that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot err when definitively teaching on matters of faith and morals. Not because the Church says so, but because the Bible and Tradition say that the Church says so. There’s a difference.
Inocencio-
I will answer your question, I apologize, I was trying to deal with one other person.
Mr. Inocencio, I believe that “sola scriptura” is the best of both our views.
“Sola ecclesia” reverts to circular reasoning-(I’m sure you would think the same of my view).
In trying to understand Rome’s view of their apologetics, I have found the arguments quite good and scholarly.
However I have also found that when applying these same arguments to YOUR theology, it cannot withstand it.
I am fallible, but The Word is not!.
The Word is “Theopneustos”- Tradition is not!
“I am fallible, but The Word is not!.”
Then your understanding of the Word could be completely wrong.
Erick,
“Sola ecclesia” reverts to circular reasoning.
Are you claiming that someone here is resorting to “Sola ecclesia”? (If you claim that I am, please show me what I have said that has led to that misimpression.)
Do you at least agree that you need some authority outside of Scripture for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? (Scripture does not tell you what’s in Scripture, and it does not tell you that only Scripture is authoritative.)
Bro. Cadfael-
There is no difference!.
Rome dictates not only the extent of Scripture but its meaning as well!- the same is the case with Tradition!- so again, you are not saying much!, Bro. Cadfael!.
The testimony of history, tradition, the constant teaching of the Church and Scripture constitute not a circle, but what Scott Hahn called a “hermeneutical spiral”.
All reasoning assumes that you start *somewhere*, holding *some* premises.
Once again, C.S. Lewis –
“Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada… A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.”
Erick,
There is no difference!.
Rome dictates not only the extent of Scripture but its meaning as well!- the same is the case with Tradition!- so again, you are not saying much!, Bro. Cadfael!.
Forgive my incompetence in explaining this. One does not need Rome’s interpretation of Scripture to see that Scripture provides evidence of the Church’s authority. Similarly, one does not need Rome’s interpretation of Tradtition to see that Tradition provides evidence of the Church’s authority. I am failing to see how you regard them as the “same thing.”
Christ Himself institutionalized Christianity. Your main complaint is that He did not give you the authority you desire.
Innocencio, I suggest you read Revelation 2-3. Those chapters list several churches, most of which were in various states of decline, if not outright apostacy.
Besides, Innocencio, the same Christ who “institutionalized” Christianity is the same Christ who rhetorically asked, “When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?”
The same Christ who tried to defuse disobedience to the Pharisees and Saducees is the same Christ who challenged those vary same authorities.
As those episodes, which are scattered throughout the Gospels, illustrate, religious authorities who have received their commission from God can become radically and fundamentally corrupt.
StubbleSpark, you are quite right about the chaos that permeates much of Protestantism. However, you ignore the opposite side of that coin: the existance in Catholicism of a centralized, rigid governing bureaucracy that places its own self-service, self-survival and desire for influence and secular prestige over the interests and mandates of God. To deny this is to deny at least five centuries of European history. Moreover, if the clerical sex-abuse crisis didn’t make that bureaucracy’s fundamentally self-serving nature clear, then you are blind beyond hope.
You gentlemen revel in your allegiance to that bureaucracy. Do you seriously believe that it can save anybody from sin?
Bro. Cadfael-
Maybe I’m in the wrong here, but I thought that according to your theology, only Rome was the infallible interpreter of Scripture!.
I thought only Rome could define Sacred Tradition?— is that right?. If the answer is yes, then everything goes back to Rome!.
If the answer is no, then I apologize!.
“You gentlemen revel in your allegiance to that bureaucracy.” That’s a lie, and you know it. Their loyalty and obedience is to Christ and His Church.
Tim J-
That’s right!- I could be wrong!.
Such is the nature of being fallible!–.
Do you think free will is a bad thing only because there is a chance we could choose the wrong way?.
God is not willing that any should perish…yet some do perish!.
The question is …are YOU fallible?.
Tradition is also God-Breathed. It just wasn’t written down like Scripture. Scripture is Holy Tradition that happened to be written down, Holy Tradition that wasn’t written down is now known as Tradition. The Church is the pillar and bullwark of Truth. With out those three you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Very well, bill912, let me pose this: How many of those gentlemen castigated Rod Dreher for his legitimate criticisms of the Catholic episcopocracy’s abyssmal failure to protect the innocent during the clerical sex-abuse crisis? How many Catholics eviserated Dreher essentially for asking the question in his Wall Street Journal commentary that no other Catholic dared ask: Why does Pope John Paul II spend so much time on Iraq and so little on a crisis that challenges the Church’s fundamental moral credibility?
I’ll tell you why: A cult of personality has developed around the late pope that wishes to immunize him from all legitimate criticism. That is allegiance to the Church as insitution, not to Christ.
I can give you the name of one man who has led the way in bashing Dreher: Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. If a man holding such a position can engage in slanderous behavior, what can other supposedly less-educated “orthodox” Catholics do?
Loyalty to Christ and His Church, bill912, means defending the innocent. That’s what God wants. Loyalty to Christ and His Church, bill912, means supporting the principles of justice enunciated in Scripture. That’s what the Church is failing to do with its revisionist attitude toward capital punishment — and many lay Catholics who claim to be loyal and obedient to Christ are allowing Church officals to hoodwink them on this issue.
You know what I’m saying is the truth, bill912.
Erick,
Bro. Cadfael-
Maybe I’m in the wrong here, but I thought that according to your theology, only Rome was the infallible interpreter of Scripture!.
Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. When the Magisterium posits a definitive interpretation of Scripture, it is infallible. Further, only the Magisterium has that authority. You are correct in those assertions, but they have no application to what we’re talking about.
The Magisterium has, in fact, infallibly defined very few passages of Scripture. And I am relying on no such infallible definitions or interpretations here.
What I am saying is that when you consider Sacred Scripture apart from anything the Church has to say about it, without resorting to any infallible interpretations, you find substantial evidence of the authority provided to the Church.
Same analysis for Tradition.
The fact that Rome can infallibly interpret Scripture and Tradition does not mean that my arguments are based on any such infallible interpretations. The support of Scripture and Tradition for the authority of the Chuch can be seen quite plainly without the Magisterium’s input.
I agree with you to this point. If the Magisterium’s infallible interpretation were required to support the Magisterium’s infallibility, the logic would be hopelessly circular. But the conclusion you reach is based on a false premise.
Dr. Eric-
“Tradition is also God-Breathed”.
Says who?.- are You your own authority for this statement?.
Bro. Cadfael-
We disagree!.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” -2 Thessalonians 2:14
If God wanted him to write this, then what St. Paul said is true. Therefore we have to hold onto the Oral Traditions that St. Paul handed down to us.
I never say anything on my own authority.
Joseph,
A cult of personality has developed around the late pope that wishes to immunize him from all legitimate criticism.
In order to be legitimate, criticism should be based on facts. To suggest that the late Holy Father did not anguish over the abuse of children is nonsensical. It is certainly not factual.
There is certain arrogance and pride that assumes one knows all of the relevant facts regarding a situation based on what the media provides. Who are you (or who is Rod) to suggest that you know what Pope John Paul II was doing behind the scenes?
I know that Rod anguished over this matter, and I know that he is sincere in his beliefs. But much of his criticism reminds me of the after-the-fact criticisms of Pope Pius XII and how he did “nothing” to stop the Holocaust.
It is our Christian duty (one I will be the first to admit I do not always remember) to assume the good motives of another. That is certainly no less true with the Holy Father, where it is a virtual lock that you (and Rod) have only a fraction of the relevant information.
I am not familiar with what you have termed slanderous remarks by Kevin Miller. If he has in fact slandered Rod, he should be held to account for it. But if he has simply pointed out the error of Rod’s ways — which is an objective fact — that is not slander.
You know what I’m saying is the truth, bill912.
I can’t speak for bill912, but I see very little truth in your post Joseph.
Dr.Eric-
I fail to see where Tradition is reffered to as “Theopneustos” in that particular passage!.
Joseph D’Hippolito,
As those episodes, which are scattered throughout the Gospels, illustrate, religious authorities who have received their commission from God can become radically and fundamentally corrupt.
But Christ still says to do as they say and not as they do. We are all fallen sinners and Christ still died for us. He chose fallen men, the apostles, Peter who would deny Him and yet He still sent them forth with His authority. Fallen men today still have that authority and will till the end of time, even if you reject it.
It is always about authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
erick,
Sacred Scripture came from Sacred Tradition just as Dr. Eric pointed out. Christ commanded the Apostles to teach not write which they did long before the canon of Sacred Scripture was set.
Sacred Scripture says if your brother sins against you take it to the Church, why? Because it also says the house of the living God, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. It is the Church that has the authority to bind and loose. St. John makes it clear that all that Christ said and did would fill the world with books if it were written down. It is to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would come to guide to all Truth and all that Christ said.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Sacred Scripture makes all of this clear.
Open any phone book and look under churches to see what Sola Scriptura has done to Christianity.
Inocencio-
It is plain from the context of Scripture that when Crist says to do as they say– he contends that this is in-so far as what they say aligns with “the law”-ie. Scripture.
The rest of your posting I agree 100%.
Inocencio-
Open the pages of any book on the history of civilization and see what “sola ecclesia” has done!.
erick,
Then you agree that it is always about authority?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio-
We agree!……
“Sola ecclesia?” There’s a new one! Erick has a vivid imagination, to say the least!
erick,
Then it is ok in your understanding that protestants can contradict each other while still claiming to teach from the bible alone?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio-
In essentials…unity!
In non essentials…understanding
In everything else…love!.
bill912,
What erick won’t acknowledge is that Catholics are Sola Dei Verbum.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Open the pages of any book on the history of civilization and see what “sola ecclesia” has done!.
Assuming that you (wrongly) use “sola ecclesia” to refer to the Catholic Church, which “history” are you referring to?
The spread of the Gospel throughout the world?
The proliferation of universities and centers of learning?
The care of the poor, sick, and disadvantaged?
If so, yes, you are correct that the Catholic Church is responsible for many great things!
erick,
Yes, I have read St. Augustine as well. The quotation is usually “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Erick,
In essentials…unity!
In non essentials…understanding
In everything else…love!.
You agree, I assume, that for this to make any sense at all, the people who are supposed to be unified have to agree on what is essential.
There is virtually nothing (not even what you might regard as essential) about which you can find complete unaninimty within denominations (or non-denominations) that consider themselves protestant or generically Christian.
Erick,
Would you agree that if St. Augustine regarding something as “essential” then it is something you should be united with him on?
I recognize that you and I might disagree on what he regarded as essential, but I’m wondering whether you would agree with the former statement if it could be shown.
Bro. Cadfael-
Unlike many who are Protestant and post here regularly, I won’t go in detail as to explain what I meant by opening the books on the history of civilization for the evidence of what I believe “sola ecclesia” has not only condoned, but practiced in the past.
Be that as it may- you may be surprised that I don’t consider any “Father” of the Church free from error.
So whenever I encounter discussions about Luther et al- I take it with a grain of salt, knowing fully well I don’t agree with their positions as one hundred per cent.
They were fallible just as I am–although I am more fallible than they (for sure).
If St. Augustine regarded something as “essential” which does not align with Scripture (Is-8:20)- then It stands as nought.
Erick,
If St. Augustine regarded something as “essential” which does not align with Scripture (Is-8:20)- then It stands as nought.
Isn’t your quotation of St. Augustine, then, quite meaningless? There is no unity about essentials if there is no agreement on what is, in fact essential.
Be that as it may- you may be surprised that I don’t consider any “Father” of the Church free from error.
You may be more surprised to learn that I don’t consider any “Father” of the Church free from error!
My point is simply this. Augustine’s maxim makes sense where there is an objective authority determining what is or is not essential. It does not make sense where everyone is “free” to determine for themselves what is true.
The Bible is authoritative, and you will certainly (I’m guessing) state that it is a sufficient objective authority. But the problem (for the maxim) is that it is not necessarily evident what is “essential” from Scripture.
Case in point, Scripture plainly says that baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet most (not all) protestants would say that baptism is not essential.
My “beef” is not so much with your position of “sola scriptura” (I do have a “beef” with it, I’m just not addressing it right now), but with your invocation of St. Augustine’s maxim, “in essentials unity.” Again, if there is no agreement on what is essential, there can be no unity on essentials.
From Phillip Blosser:
Nor will it do to fall back on the assertion that Protestant conservatives, at least, are united on “essentials”; for the question as to what is “essential” and what is not, is itself part of what is at issue. Lutherans consider baptism essential, while Quakers do not. Baptists consider an “adult” profession of faith to be an essential prerequisite for baptism, while Presbyterians do not. Presbyterians consider the predestination of the elect to be an essential doctrine but Free Methodists do not. Nazarenes consider personal holiness an essential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not. Calvinists consider the “irresistability of grace” an essential belief, while Lutherans do not. Episcopalians consider sacraments essential, but the Salvation Army does not. Presbyterians regard the belief in the “total depravity” of man essential, but Methodists do not. The Dutch Reformed consider creeds and confessions essential, but Baptists do not. Baptists consider “altar calls” essential but Presbyterians do not. (Not by Faith Alone.)
As far as Scripture being God-Breathed, we all agree on that, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that there are no other God-Breathed sources of authority. Actually, Our Lord does say that oral speach is God-Breathed:
“Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.”
-1 Thessalonians 2:13
“But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”
-St. Matthew 10:19-20
“Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people, and ancients, hear: If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him this man standeth here before you whole.”
-Acts 4:8-10
“Be that as it may- you may be surprised that I don’t consider any “Father” of the Church free from error.”
Neither do Catholics, erick.
Only the popes (when speaking excathedra) and councils enjoy that charism, and THEN only when speaking on matters of faith or morals. Did you not know that?
Pope Benedict’s thoughts on, say, art history – while I would find them very interesting, I’m sure – might be as fallible as mine.
Bro. Cadfael-
You stance on sola ecclesia is again redundant!.
Augustine’s quote DOES make sense— the authority as to what is essential comes directly from Sola Scriptura.
None of the things mentioned above make any sense.
I have myself noted here on this site many points of views regarding the meaning of what the Pope said on this and that—some of it pretty heated at times.
We could never have a meaningful discussion as to what is essential because you deny sola scriptura–as I deny sola ecclesia.
Tim J-
“Only the Popes (when speaking excathedra)and councils enjoy..(being infallible)…did you know that?”.
Yes I did!.
Dr Eric-
…”but nowhere in Scripture does it say that there are no other God-Breathed sources of authority.”
Are you then arguing from silence?—I can prove anything that way!.
How about discussing what the Scriptures DO say?.
Erick,
Dr. Eric…How about discussing what the Scriptures DO say?.
He did Erick, why won’t you?
Tim J-
“Only the Popes (when speaking excathedra)and councils enjoy..(being infallible)…did you know that?”.
Yes I did!.
Then why are you arguing as if we believe that all Church Fathers are free from all error?
You stance on sola ecclesia is again redundant!.
Augustine’s quote DOES make sense— the authority as to what is essential comes directly from Sola Scriptura.
I don’t have a stance on sola ecclesia — other than it is wrong. You have not addressed how any two people can have unity on “essentials” if they don’t agree what the “essentials” are.
I have myself noted here on this site many points of views regarding the meaning of what the Pope said on this and that—some of it pretty heated at times.
Most of the discussion you refer to is with people who refuse to accept the authority of the Magisterium or the Pope. (Or they will pick and choose which Popes they regard as authoritative –the most blatantly illogical position.) For those that regard Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as authoritative, there is, in fact, little disagreement about what is “essential.”
The invention of “sola ecclesia”, the attribution of that invention as a teaching of the Church, and the attack on the invention reminds me of the 17th Century book, “Roman Antichrist”, by Andreas Helwig. He invented a title for the pope: “Vicarius Filii Dei(Vicar of the Son of God)”. Helwig then showed how the letters of this title, using the numerical values of the Romans, add up to 666. He then used this made-up title–one the popes have never used–to show that the pope is the anti-Christ. I give him a B+ for inventiveness; and an F for scholarship.
Alright, thus sayeth the Scriptures:
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” -St. John 6:54-55
The Scripture is plain, you must eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood to have Everlasting Life.
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” -2 Peter 1:20
“And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” -2 Peter 3:15-16
30,000 different interpreters have twisted the Scriptures to their own destruction… are you one of them? How would you know?
I’m going home now.
Da Pobachennya!
Bro. Cadfael-
I’m surprised at how blind you are!!!!!???-
Did Dr. Eric address something the Bible said by alluding to something it does not??????….read the post again Bro. Cadfael!.
“You have not addressed how any two people can have unity on “essentials” if they don’t agree what the essentials are”-
Ok- Bro. Cadfael—give me an example!.
” there is in fact little disagreement about what is “essential”— explain “little disagreement”.
Erick –
Clearly we are spinning our wheels, here.
You or I may screw up royally in our understanding of the faith, but all Christians together – through time and space – can not. This is the teaching of the Church on the matter, in a nutshell. Safety in numbers.
Lean not to your own understanding, but trust in the power of the Holy Spirit in ALL your bretheren (and “sisteren”). This requires humility and submission… not exactly earmarks of the modern spirit.
You have the right to interpret the Bible ANY WAY YOU LIKE – but you just do not have ANY authority to proclaim that your understanding of scripture = Christian doctrine. That authority belongs to the Church (all of us together). Who has been given the authority to speak for ALL of us? The popes and the councils, not every lone-wolf exegete that comes down the pike.
I just read Acts last night, and ecclesial authority is all over the place… you can’t move without bumping into it. Show me in the Bible where it teaches that this authority died with the Apostles. Every indication of scripture is otherwise.
Dr Eric-
2pet1:20, could apply to Rome, couldn’t it?- and if not, why?.
Tim J-
You read Acts?– good!.
Now show me where this “authority” included the sole pointificate at Rome!.
“2pet1:20, could apply to Rome, couldn’t it?- ”
That passage speaks to exactly what I was talking about. What interpretation do we trust? The PUBLIC interpretation – the one we have ALL made together – not our own and not that of some teacher of novelties like Luther.
Any private interpretation can go horribly wrong. The pope and the councils alone have the authority to articulate PUBLIC interpretation, formed by the sensus fidelum and the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
“Now show me where this “authority” included the sole pointificate at Rome!.”
I’m not particular about Rome, but I don’t see any other candidates for the Seat of Peter.
let me see…
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Was Jesus talking to someone else, here? Did he command another to feed his sheep? Not that I expect you to be open to the possibility, but there it is, in black and white.
Lets leave the Pope out of it for a second… are you saying you accept the authority of the bishops and the councils?
Erick,
Bro. Cadfael-
I’m surprised at how blind you are!!!!!???-
Did Dr. Eric address something the Bible said by alluding to something it does not??????….read the post again Bro. Cadfael!.
Perhaps it is you who needs some glasses, my friend. Check out Dr. Eric’s post of 3:47 pm.
“You have not addressed how any two people can have unity on “essentials” if they don’t agree what the essentials are”-
Ok- Bro. Cadfael—give me an example!.
I did. Check out my post of 3:41 pm (immediately preceding Dr. Eric’s). You can also check out his 3:47 post again, as he provides numerous additional examples of “essentials” upon which there is uniform disagreement among non-Catholic Christians.
” there is in fact little disagreement about what is “essential”— explain “little disagreement”. This was in reference to my statement that there is “little disagreement” among those who regard Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as authoritative. For example, then, such Catholics would all agree: that Christ is Truly Present in the Eucharist, that the seven sacraments of the Church are efficacious, that Mary is the Theotokos (Mother of God), immaculately conceived and assumed, body and soul into heaven. In short, what the Church proposes as infallibly true (which would include, of course, essential truths that many (but not all) protestants would agree with, too, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the Body, etc.), is accepted by all such persons as true.
There may be disagreement about what this or that doctrine means at the edges, but there is agreement on the fact of the doctrine. You simply cannot say this about Protestantism.
It is plain from the context of Scripture that when Crist says to do as they say– he contends that this is in-so far as what they say aligns with “the law”-ie. Scripture.
Therefore you must do everything they tell you to do . . .
That’s plain. Unfortunately, it’s plainly the opposite of what you assert.
Mary-
???…. what?.
Bro. Cadfael-
You are still blind!.
I was referring to Dr. eric’s post where he states that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there are no other God Breathed sources (3:47:12-pm)- that is an argument from silence!.
The Bible neither says that there are not other Popes !- that’s how ridiculous that statement is to me!— but obviously not to you.
Your posting of 3:41pm is irrevelant to the discussion because you are comparing Roman doctrine(Baptism saves), with Protestant doctrine(Baptism does not save).
We are obviously going to disagree .
I thought the point you were trying to make was that of “inconsistencies” WITHIN PROTESTANTISM’S view of what is essential, the 30.000+ denominations (remember?), in which case I still await an example.
See Dr. Eric’s post, above: 12/29, 3:47PM
Catholics love to attack protestants for their supposed defective view of the Bible or its interpretation.
But where are the Catholic equivalents to protestant work such as Craig Blomberg’s Historical Reliability of the Gospels or Kenneth Kitchen’s On the Reiability of the Old Testament?
Bill912-
See St. Matthew’s post 15:14.
Jeb Protestant, well put.
But Christ still says to do as they say and not as they do. We are all fallen sinners and Christ still died for us. He chose fallen men, the apostles, Peter who would deny Him and yet He still sent them forth with His authority. Fallen men today still have that authority and will till the end of time, even if you reject it.
It is always about authority.
No, it’s not about authority, Inocencio. It’s about truth. It’s about morality. It’s about ethics. It’s about human decency. It’s about humility. Christ demanded that those who hold power in his name act in a manner that displays those tendencies. I suggest you read Chapter 14 of St. John’s Gospel, or any of St. Paul’s suggestions to St. Timothy concerning the type of people who are fit for church leadership.
The fact that Church leaders are fallen sinners does not dismiss the necessity for accountability, as you imply. Yet all too many Catholics are willing to let church leaders skate by merely because they hold leadership positions.
Inocencio, you are the perfect example of the type of Catholic I described earlier who confuses loyalty to ecclesiastical bureaucracy with faith in Christ.
Do you seriously believe that St. Peter — a simple, blunt man — would have tolerated or put up with the nonsense excused in his name?
Joseph D’Hippolito-
“Inocencio, you are the perfect example of a Catholic I described earlier who confuses loyalty to ecclesiastical bureaucracy with faith in Christ”.
Exellent definition as to what “sola ecclesia” leads to!!!.
Now to you, Brother Cadfael:
To suggest that the late Holy Father did not anguish over the abuse of children is nonsensical. It is certainly not factual.
As C.S. Lewis so eloquently said, a downcast countenance is not a moral disinfectant. I have no doubt that JPII felt extreme personal anguish over the abuse of children. But it’s nothing but narcissistic for someone with tremendous pastoral authority not to go beyond personal anguish when the innocent are betrayed. He has a responsibility to God and his Church to act and act decisively.
There is certain arrogance and pride that assumes one knows all of the relevant facts regarding a situation based on what the media provides. Who are you (or who is Rod) to suggest that you know what Pope John Paul II was doing behind the scenes?
All we know is what we see — and what the world saw was a man who spent more time criticizing American intervention in Iraq and canonizing saints than addressing the moral failings of his own church.
In 2002, when the crisis in Boston broke, JPII was in Toronto for World Youth Day. He refused to see a delegation of Canadian abuse victims. Instead of flying to Boston to console the afflicted, reassure the faithful and confront the misfeasant — in short, instead of performing his fundamental pastoral duties — he remained on his precious itinerary and went to Guatemala to canonize two more saints. And Boston ain’t that far from Toronto, certainly not as far as Guatemala is.
I know that Rod anguished over this matter, and I know that he is sincere in his beliefs. But much of his criticism reminds me of the after-the-fact criticisms of Pope Pius XII and how he did “nothing” to stop the Holocaust.
Making such an equation is nonsense. Pius XII could do little to stop the Holocaust because the Holocaust was led by secular authorities over whom he had little (if any) control and absolutely no authority (and who would reject that authority if he tried to exercise it). The clerical sex-abuse crisis, however, was aided and abetted by bishops whom JPII appointed and over whom he had direct authority. He failed to execute his authority responsibly.
To my way of thinking, JPII was no less malfeasant than Eli, the high priest in I Samuel 2-4. Eli let his sons (also priests) steal sacrifices in the Tabernacle and encourage religious prostitution. They were totally corrupt. Yet Eli did nothing but verbally reprimand his sons — much like JPII verbally reprimanded his American bishops. Do you think God was satisfied? Read I Samuel and get back to me.
It is our Christian duty (one I will be the first to admit I do not always remember) to assume the good motives of another. That is certainly no less true with the Holy Father, where it is a virtual lock that you (and Rod) have only a fraction of the relevant information.
It’s also our Christian duty, Brother Cadfael, to defend the innocent from predators. In fact, I’d say that’s more of a duty than assuming someone’s good motives. Besides, where does it say in Scripture that we have to assume anyone’s good motives? All Christians are called upon to be “wise as serpents yet innocents as doves,” as Christ Himself said. Being wise, among other things, means looking at the facts on the ground and placing those facts into context.
The fact is that JPII did nothing to stop the wholesale abuse of children. If you don’t believe me, then as yourself why is Roger Mahony still the archbishop of Los Angeles?
Joe-
Are you arguing that because (as you assert) JPII “did nothing” to deal with the priest abuse crisis that this makes him… what, not the pope? Or do you just reject the idea of the ecclesial authority altogether and find the abuse crisis to be as handy a stick as anything?
Christ established the authority of the Catholic hierarchy. In rejecting the authority of His church you are rejecting Him.
“It’s about truth. It’s about morality. It’s about ethics. It’s about human decency. It’s about humility.”
Exactly. All under the headship of Christ… WHO ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH. Humility? Where is the humility in being your own pope? Anyone can do that. You are too focused on your own truth and on the ethics and morality of others.
Amen, Tim.
Tim J. and bill 912, after rereading my own posts on this thread, I can certainly tell you that 1) I’ve never discounted JPII’s occupation of the Petrine office 2) I have never denied that Christ founded the Church.
Saying that JPII was not a pope is like saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush was never president. I don’t deal in fantasy, gentlemen.
I have discounted, however, the sense of arrogant superiority that many on this thread display when it comes to their Catholic identity. That sense of arrogant superiority denies the necessity for all Christians to study and read Scripture for themselves so they can better understand the basics of the faith. That sense of arrogant superiority designates all non-Catholic Christias as second-class citizens, spiritually speaking. That arrogant superiority is nothing but the flip side of blind adherence to a cult of personality that seeks to insulate a late pope from legitimate criticism of his pastoral responsibilities. That sense of arrogant superiority often gives Church authorities a pass merely because they are Church authorities.
Worst of all, that sense of arrogant superiority effectively places the Church ahead of Christ (which is idolatry, gentlemen). If that weren’t true, then you wouldn’t be making excuses for papal misfeasance in the biggest threat to the Church’s moral credibility since the Reformation.
Your problem is that you rely on stereotypical counterattacks (“Are you arguing that because (as you assert) JPII ‘did nothing’ to deal with the priest abuse crisis that this makes him… what, not the pope?”) because you cannot see the truth for what it is.
No; our problem is that we don’t ride your Hobby Horse.
bill912, perhaps you don’t “ride my hobby horse” because that “hobby horse” is too threatening to your fantasies?
“…that sense of arrogant superiority effectively places the Church ahead of Christ (thereby) confus(ing) loyalty to ecclesiastical bureaucracy with faith in Crist”.
SOLA ECCLESIA !.
12/29/06, 4:25PM.
12/29/06, 2:30PM
Is. 8:20.
“That sense of arrogant superiority denies the necessity for all Christians to study and read Scripture for themselves so they can better understand the basics of the faith.”
My first thought is that this is very harsh on illiterates. But secondly, it is just false. I have never said anything like that and don’t believe it, nor does the Church teach anything like it.
Obviously, throughout history, most Christians did not have bibles to study, so I would say that personal bible study is very desirable, but not absolutely necessary for understanding the gospel. The bare gospel could be given orally to anyone in five minutes.
“That sense of arrogant superiority designates all non-Catholic Christias as second-class citizens, spiritually speaking.”
Umm, no. I am an adult convert. Most of my family is Protestant, and I have known a number of Prots who are good, solid Christians. Being a faithful Christian is always a good thing, but being a Catholic is best. The Protestant faith (if there is such a thing) isn’t WRONG… it’s just not right enough. I’m sorry… was it terribly arrogant of me to convert?
“That arrogant superiority is nothing but the flip side of blind adherence to a cult of personality”
Joe, your posts are consistently the most arrogantly superior it has ever been my dis-pleasure to read. Just the flip-side of your blind contempt for the person of JPII. Who exactly has been trying to insulate him from criticism? You are really barking up the wrong tree, here. Overall, I was just luke-warm on JPII’s papacy… but he was pope, and I wasn’t.
“Worst of all, that sense of arrogant superiority effectively places the Church ahead of Christ (which is idolatry, gentlemen).”
Wrong again. You sure assume a lot.
The Church is the BODY of Christ, Joe. It is impossible that it be either ahead of or behind him. Your idea that you can hold Christ ahead of the Church he established is making an idol of your own intellect and will.
In as much as the Catholic Church is the true Church, when I obey the Church, I obey Christ. Jesus said as much… “He who hears you hears me”.
Similarly, if I wish to submit to Christ, I will submit to the Church He established. There is simply no such thing as “either Christ or the Church”.
Should leaders be held to account? Sure, but by whom? You? They are accountable to God for the way they have lived and for the decisions they have made. Can we criticize? Protest? Sure! But you may not – with any authority – proclaim your opinion as Christian Doctrine.
I’m all for the laity keeping the hierarchy honest in any number of ways… but your personal loathing of JPII is transparent.
The claim that the Church’s ability to teach truth is nullified by the presence of sinners in her midst is nothing more than corporate ad hominum. Christ says “do as the hypocrites say but not as they do.”
This is a fantastic piece of wisdom that asks believers to put aside judgmentalism and seek truth and do good.
It has allowed us to freely debate issues in a detached manner without resorting to personal attacks. This personal insulation protects us from demagogues who would use the force of their political, financial, or charismatic influence to “prove” their arguments.
It also keeps you open to the possibility that truth can come from unexpected places. Take a secular example:
Many folks would complain that conservative commentators have no business espousing pro-war views because hardly any have actually participated in a war.
At first glance, this sounds fair but the question you have to ask yourself is this: is it POSSIBLE that the views said commentator espouses are true despite the fact he has never been in combat?
The answer is obvious: of course it is possible.
Conversely, if we were to somehow enforce the belief that no one who has not been in a war is allowed to speak pro-war views then we would be committing an act of violation of his right to free speech.
Such a restriction in this case is immoral and should not be enforced. What do we do? We have to tolerate the messiness of humanity in human dialogue. Go figure.
Much could be said about the evil that has crept into the world thanks to Protestant dealings, but Protestants are not unified like Catholics. So pointing to sex abuse scandals at the Second Baptist Church or the enormity of the crimes committed by the Branch Davidians does no good.
Because every Protestant mind is Cathedral unto himself, he can freely disown his brother theologically even if the bad person in question was his own preacher.
“Wasn’t me!”
“Wasn’t MY doctrine!”
So not only do Protestants get carte blanche on any misdealings within their own ranks, but they make quick use of the unity of Catholicism to blame 21st century American Catholics for evils older than the very country we live in.
Sound fair? Of course not! But the True Church would have a tougher row to hoe. Seeing as we are closer to God and His Truth, it is only natural we are held to higher standards of morality.
I am glad, however, to see we have left the circular logic attack behind. You could have conceded defeat on that issue rather than pull the ole’ switcheroo to the ad hominum attack.
The truth is, all belief is circular — or at least circle-ish. To begin to belief a given faith, you must first make some sort of leap in the Other — a belief in the authority of the false prophet Mohammed, or the ethereal truth of Sidhartha, for example — in order to close the circuit and start the machine.
That is why faith is always so powerful and dangerous — it carries you away once you make that step.
The closer that faith is to Truth (God), the more good you may accomplish in His name. Even if that great amount of good only appears to be small, daily sacrifices like those of St. Therese.
The further that faith is from Truth, the more evil you bring into the world. The centuries of endless infighting, racism, despotism, and senseless bloodshed of Islam come to mind here.
But comparatively speaking, the circle of Protestant faith logic is smaller than that of Catholic faith logic. Which is why it is so asinine that a Protestant would criticize a Catholic for having circular reasoning.
To the Protestant, faith functions something like this:
–>Belief in Christ->
| |
<- Belief in Bible<-- One can enter the circuit by first making the leap in the belief in the existence of the historical Christ or in the veracity of the Bible's testaments. But once you are in, each belief feeds the other: the Bible testifies to the necessity of Christ which in turn testifies to the necessity of the Bible. No one is believed to be saved through their Bible, so possessing a Bible or reading a Bible are, rightfully, not considered requirements for salvation. Nonetheless, the Bible is still considered, rightfully, an indispensable tool for understanding Christ. Conversely, if one choses not to believe in Christ, or in the Bible's testament to Him, then he does not enter the circuit of faith in this life and, if the choice is a concious repudiation of Christ, he choses eternal damnation in the next life.
I am glad, however, to see we have left the circular logic attack behind. You could have conceded defeat on that issue rather than pull the ole’ switcheroo to the ad hominum attack.
The truth is, all belief is circular — or at least circle-ish. To begin to belief a given faith, you must first make some sort of leap in the Other — a belief in the authority of the false prophet Mohammed, or the ethereal truth of Sidhartha, for example — in order to close the circuit and start the machine.
That is why faith is always so powerful and dangerous — it carries you away once you make that step.
The closer that faith is to Truth (God), the more good you may accomplish in His name. Even if that great amount of good only appears to be small, daily sacrifices like those of St. Therese.
The further that faith is from Truth, the more evil you bring into the world. The centuries of endless infighting, racism, despotism, and senseless bloodshed of Islam come to mind here.
But comparatively speaking, the circle of Protestant faith logic is smaller than that of Catholic faith logic. Which is why it is so asinine that a Protestant would criticize a Catholic for having circular reasoning.
To the Protestant, faith functions something like this:
–>Belief in Christ->
| |
<- Belief in Bible<-- One can enter the circuit by first making the leap in the belief in the existence of the historical Christ or in the veracity of the Bible's testaments. But once you are in, each belief feeds the other: the Bible testifies to the necessity of Christ which in turn testifies to the necessity of the Bible. No one is believed to be saved through their Bible, so possessing a Bible or reading a Bible are, rightfully, not considered requirements for salvation. Nonetheless, the Bible is still considered, rightfully, an indispensable tool for understanding Christ. Conversely, if one choses not to believe in Christ, or in the Bible's testament to Him, then he does not enter the circuit of faith in this life and, if the choice is a concious repudiation of Christ, he choses eternal damnation in the next life.
Sorry for the double-post!
Things are slightly different on the Catholic side, however. Because Catholicism adds Church to the circuit making for an overall more complex piece of machinery.
Also, the Catholic circuit is connected in parallel with the power source, Christ, clearly defined (with only two nodes in Protestantism’s series circuit, it is less clear).
What do I mean? Quite simply I mean it is the dumbest thing in the world to believe in the Catholic Church. All faith in the Catholic Church is misplaced idolatrous worship and an affront to God and God’s commandments.
If you do not believe in Christ first.
Without Christ, faith in the Church is meaningless. Without faith in Christ the Church is another bureaucracy, another human agency, another organization, a 2000 year-old bowling team.
So, in order to have faith in the Church, you must have faith in Christ first.
Faith in Christ however, does not lead to faith in His Church. At least not directly. Faith in Christ leads to faith in His Gospel as described in the Bible (and not in some other book/s). We need to know what He did first and why He did it.
Without this knowledge, we cannot have faith in the Church. There are too reasons for this:
1) The existence of the Bible begs the question regarding the existence of not-bible. As in, “Where’s my Gospel According to Judas?” “Who says it shouldn’t be in here and where does that authority come from?”
2) Christ made a church in the Bible. Where did it go?
So, to recap, first we must have faith in Christ, second we must have faith in the Bible, third we have faith in the Church.
You cannot mess with this order. The Jesuit missionaries did not teach the Algonquin “Hey, we got cool buildings with paintings and sculpture and stuff. You should check it out.”
You should note that thus far, in order for the circuit to be closed and activated, you must first follow this LINEAR progression.
Both Scripture and Church point directly back to Christ. Church also points to Scripture, Scripture to Church, and Christ to both. It is here that the circuit is finally closed and current runs through all the nodes.
Anyone who tries to enter the circuit part-way through without first going to Christ will not be able to close the circuit unless they are redirected to Christ via the other two (or both) nodes.
So you will have to imagine it (the previous graphic representation didn’t come out right). Christ is at the center. Radiating from Him are Scripture and Church. The Church is hierarchically lower than Scripture in terms of teaching authority, yet Scripture was recognized, assembled, defended, and promulgated by Church.
And since you owe your Christianity to her sacrifices, I say you still owe God a little knee-time in gratitude for sending her doctors and martyrs to hand on the same faith you use to look down your nose at her.
Mr. Jones, after reading your original satirical post, all I can say is that I called you out and you didn’t like it. Don’t try to cover yourself by confusing the issue.
Should leaders be held to account? Sure, but by whom? You? They are accountable to God for the way they have lived and for the decisions they have made. Can we criticize? Protest? Sure! But you may not – with any authority – proclaim your opinion as Christian Doctrine.
I have never said that my opinion about the late pope equals Christian doctrine. You would be hard-pressed to find anything I’ve written that says that. In fact, I am far less arrogant than the late pope, who unilaterally aborgated to himself the authority to revise centuries of Catholic teaching concerning capital punishment for his own abolitionist position, a prudential view that the current pope enshrined as de facto doctrine in the CCC.
Your idea that you can hold Christ ahead of the Church he established is making an idol of your own intellect and will.
Poppycock. Christ sits at the right hand of God. He will come again to judge the living and the dead (including members and non-members of His body) and to set up a kingdom with Himself as head. While Christ identifies with the Church, He also is the head of the Church and has an identity that is separate from that of the Church.
Obviously, throughout history, most Christians did not have bibles to study, so I would say that personal bible study is very desirable, but not absolutely necessary for understanding the gospel. The bare gospel could be given orally to anyone in five minutes.
Poppycock, part two. First, we don’t live in the First Century; literacy has improved dramatically since then (thank you, Mr. Gutenberg). Second, giving the “bare gospel…orally to anyone in five minutes” is a far different thing than studying it in its context. That context includes the OT, which expresses the moral mind of God no less than the NT does — and which prophesied Christ’s coming. As a professional apologist, Mr. Jones, I assume you know the difference between belief and intelligent, comprehensive belief.
“That sense of arrogant superiority designates all non-Catholic Christias as second-class citizens, spiritually speaking.”
Umm, no. I am an adult convert. Most of my family is Protestant, and I have known a number of Prots who are good, solid Christians.
You really should read some of the reactions to Protestants from Catholics in the Catholic Blog Asylum, Mr. Jones. Anybody who lower cases “protestant” as a matter of course is being snobbish and arrogant — and I’ve seen a lot of that in the CBA.
Being a faithful Christian is always a good thing, but being a Catholic is best.
See above comment
Who exactly has been trying to insulate him from criticism?
Why don’t you ask the people (like Kevin Miller, a theology professor at Franciscan University) who have eviserated Rod Dreher for years for daring to ask whether the late pope failed the Church by concentrating more of his waning energy on Iraq (a situation he could do nothing about) than on clerical sex-abuse (which he could have done something about)?
“Worst of all, that sense of arrogant superiority effectively places the Church ahead of Christ (which is idolatry, gentlemen).”
Wrong again. You sure assume a lot.
Poppycock, part three. Apparently, you are unaware of the confusion within the Church concerning capital punishment. That confusion is the direct result of the late pope’s revisionist prudentialism that all too many Catholics who are ignorant of Scripture and Church history take as Gospel truth merely because the late pope said it.
You want an example? Look at Mark Shea. He has never met a prudential papal decision that he has embraced unquestioningly as doctrine. This is the same Mark Shea who turns into an un-Christlike harpy every time somebody issues a passionate, legitimate challenge.
You want other examples? Look up the word “Mottramism.”
BTW, Mr. Jones, since you mock the idea in your original satire that the Holy Spirit can help Christians understand Scripture, shall I assume that you don’t believe it? If you do, then why bring it into the discussion, unless it’s solely to hit Evangelicals over the head with it?
“BTW, Mr. Jones, since you mock the idea in your original satire that the Holy Spirit can help Christians understand Scripture, shall I assume that you don’t believe it?”
See, there you go again, Joe. Assuming…
You say you actually read my post? I was not at all mocking the idea of the Holy Spirit helping Christians understand scripture – not even a little.
Let’s look at what I actually said;
“Evangelical Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to answer any question of faith, and that any sincere believer can understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.”
All I did was state what (most) Protestants (seem to) believe. Where is the mocking? The whole point of the post is to take issue with the idea that all one needs to do is a) be sincere, and b) pray for guidance and the Holy Spirit will guide one “into all truth”. Sincere, prayerful Bible reading is not enough, on it’s own, to keep one from rank heresy. The evidence is all around us. “Intelligent, comprehensive belief” would require knowledge of the Scriptures AND submission to the Church. Again, you are trying to seperate what God has joined together. The Bible can be properly and fully understood ONLY when interpreted in harmony with the mind of the Church.
“First, we don’t live in the First Century; literacy has improved dramatically since then”
Have you any idea how many illiterates are still in the world, Mr. D’H? Or are we only concerned with those of European stock?
“You really should read some of the reactions to Protestants from Catholics in the Catholic Blog Asylum, Mr. Jones.”
Once again, you are bringing all kinds of assumptions, biases and baggage with you. Please try to limit your comments to what has been said on the current thread. Are you really going to judge someone because they forget to capitalize something?
“Why don’t you ask the people (like Kevin Miller, a theology professor at Franciscan University) who have eviserated Rod Dreher for years…”
Again, you accused me, and others here, of running interference for JPII when this is just not the case.
“Apparently, you are unaware of the confusion within the Church concerning capital punishment.”
Except that I am aware of it. I have defended the use of the death penalty in Saddam’s case, and others. I have also defended the right of the state NOT to execute murderers – a matter you are confused on. The confusion is the result of a general lack of good catechesis, and it doesn’t help to have people using this confusion, and any other handy stick, to beat up on JPII – yet again.
And, FYI – I am not any kind of apologist. I am a professional artist. A painter;
http://www.timothyjonesfineart.net
Tim, as you said in your reply to “Jeb Protestant”:
Let’say (for the sake of argument) that a sincere reader CAN (with the help of the Holy Spirit) glean everything necessary for salvation from the Bible alone (and leaving aside the question of who we look to even to tell us what the Bible IS).
If you are talking about complete and utter isolation in studying Scritpure, then I would agree with you. However, there are lots of Bible studies available that give guidance. By the same token, no study program by itself can replace a personal committment to prayerful study that truly seeks answers beyond the standard, shopworn cliches that pervade institutionalized Christianity as a whole.
Sincere, prayerful Bible reading is not enough, on it’s own, to keep one from rank heresy.
That depends on what you mean by “heresy.” If you are referring to the fact that Christ died to redeem humanity from sin, then I would fail to see how “sincere, prayerful Bible reading” would lead anybody to an opposite conclusion. Denying that aspect of Christ’s ministry, along with His divinity, would constitute “rank heresy.”
By the same token, too many Christians are willing to just “go with the flow” when it comes to studying the Bible. They’re not willing to go any farther than their superficial pastors will take them. They’re not willing to examine what faith really means and involves. What you seem to be advocating, Mr. Jones, is intellectual and spiritual laziness as it concerns grappling with Scripture.
Have you any idea how many illiterates are still in the world, Mr. D’H? Or are we only concerned with those of European stock?
Have you any idea, Mr. Jones, about how many translations of Scripture exist in African, Latin American (outside of Spanish and Portuguese) and Asian languages? Have you any idea about how many missionaries are trained to deliver the Gospel in those languages? Have you any idea about the number of radio broadcasts designed to do the same thing?
“Intelligent, comprehensive belief” would require knowledge of the Scriptures AND submission to the Church….The Bible can be properly and fully understood ONLY when interpreted in harmony with the mind of the Church.
And when the Church engages in theological and moral revisionism, as it’s doing with regard to capital punishment for murder, then what’s a Catholic to do — especially when the intellectual submission that you suggest involves giving assent to a proposition that directly contradicts revealed truth?
Once again, you are bringing all kinds of assumptions, biases and baggage with you. Please try to limit your comments to what has been said on the current thread. Are you really going to judge someone because they forget to capitalize something?
Yes, I am bringing a lot of assumptions with me. Those assumptions are based on 4 1/2 years of observing Catholic blog behavior and participating in it. Besides, Mr. Jones, I referenced the capitalization issue as a matter of course, not as an occasional mistake.
The confusion (concerning capital punishment) is the result of a general lack of good catechesis, and it doesn’t help to have people using this confusion, and any other handy stick, to beat up on JPII – yet again.
Except that JPII is the party primarly responsible for this confusion because of his abolitionist activism, which contradicts his own words in Evangelium vitae, let alone centuries of previous teaching.
If you want to know what’s really gnawing at me, it’s the kind of arrogance that says “because I’m Catholic, I’m better than other Christians.” That’s the kind of message I get from Catholic bloggers in their discussion of Protestants and Protestantism (and that kind of arrogance certainly isn’t limited to Catholics). It’s the kind of message to which Jesus Himself would respond, “Take out the plank in your own eye before you help your brother take the splinter out of his.”
“”because I’m Catholic, I’m better than other Christians.”
Well, that would bug me, too. It bugs me when I hear it from those who think they know better than an entire ecumenical council of Bishops.
“If you are referring to the fact that Christ died to redeem humanity from sin, then I would fail to see how “sincere, prayerful Bible reading” would lead anybody to an opposite conclusion.”
J.D. Crossan, Edward Schillebeex, Hans Kung… Now, you may argue that they could not possibly be sincere or prayerful, but that, I assert, is more than you or I could know. The fact is, they read the Bible in error (and outside the guidance of the Church) and it has led them into rank heresy. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals and others – ad infinitum – do the same.
Of course, you and I will continue to disagree about the application of the death penalty, just as I disagree with those who say it is against Catholic teaching. I wish JPII had not put things the way he did on the matter, but the Church will survive it. The actual teaching of the Church on the matter (as per the Catechism) can certainly be seen as within the bounds of legitimate doctrinal development.
If you are talking about complete and utter isolation in studying Scritpure, then I would agree with you. However, there are lots of Bible studies available that give guidance. By the same token, no study program by itself can replace a personal committment to prayerful study that truly seeks answers beyond the standard, shopworn cliches that pervade institutionalized Christianity as a whole.
And no amount of personal commitment or prayerful study — as necessary as those are — can replace the Church. Nor can number of Bible studies — as good as they are — replace the Church.
May God bless you and give you a fruitful 2007.
Brother Cadfael, thank you for your kind wishes. I offer you the same for the new year.
Regarding the relationship between Bible studies and the Church, it seems to me that all too many Catholics want to replace Bible studies with the Church. That’s the definite impression I get from the gist of this thread. Of course, my impression could be wrong but I think a lot of the Protestant correspondents would agree with my opinion.
I truly wish that Catholics would pay more serious attention to Scripture than they do. I also wish that Catholics would see that the Holy Spirit doesn’t ossify Himself within Church bureaucracy but has the capability to speak to all believers about Christ, to confront them and to act as their advocate. Sometimes, it seems to me that the Church has replaced the Holy Spirit in the minds of many Catholics.
J.D. Crossan, Edward Schillebeex, Hans Kung… Now, you may argue that they could not possibly be sincere or prayerful, but that, I assert, is more than you or I could know. The fact is, they read the Bible in error (and outside the guidance of the Church) and it has led them into rank heresy.
I would assert that Crossan, Kung and Schillebeex don’t read the Bible differently. I would argue that they read it in its original sense and rejected it, substituting their own theories about Christ for the original ideas.
Joseph,
I truly wish that Catholics would pay more serious attention to Scripture than they do.
No argument here.
I also wish that Catholics would see that the Holy Spirit doesn’t ossify Himself within Church bureaucracy but has the capability to speak to all believers about Christ, to confront them and to act as their advocate.
And I wish that some who call themselves Catholic, or used to, would recognize that where the Holy Spirit speaks to believers is in the Church.
Sometimes, it seems to me that the Church has replaced the Holy Spirit in the minds of many Catholics.
That is unfortunate. But again, if the “Holy Spirit” is communicating a different message to you than the Church is, the Bible tells you (along with Tradition and the Magisterium) that that is a pretty sure sign you are getting the wrong message.
Peace.
Thomas Dubay’s book, Authenticity: A Biblical Theology of Discernment is an excellent read if one is truly interested in the subject of how to balance personal enlightenment by the Holy Spirit with the objective judgment of the Church.
If either one is discarded, you end up out of sorts.
That’s a possibility. The point I was making is that their approach to the Bible is outside the traditional approach taught by the Church.
I ran into the same thing in some of the Protestant churches I attended, but in those cases there was really no authority to appeal to. No matter what argument was presented against it, they could always respond “Well, that’s your opinion”.
We are certainly in agreement that Catholics need to study the Bible more, and that the Holy Spirit CAN speak to us through the scriptures. The thing is, when we think the “Holy Spirit” is telling us something contrary to clear Church teaching, we are in error. We need to be very conscious that we carry into our understanding of scripture a great deal of ignorance, persoanl bias and prejudice (not to mention other effects of original sin) that makes us WANT to interpret the Bible in a way that SUITS US.
Now, some people might consider JPII’s statements on the death penalty “clear Church teaching”, but I find that most would feel free to disagree with the Pope on other prudential matters. In other words, they invoke papal authority WHEN THE POPE AGREES WITH THEM.
There are those who reject millenia of Church authority in the area of homosexuality, but who latch onto every anti-war statement of any Pope and proclaim “Rome has spoken!”, practically making a heretic of any Catholic who thinks our military should do anything but drop Twinkies on the enemy.
I don’t doubt that politics play a part in such Papal statements. I mean, can you imagine the uproar that would follow if a Pope came out in favor of a particular war, especially against a Muslim country?
“Yes, this war is a good idea… kick butt, troops!”.
Sorry the above post was inresponse to this;
“I would assert that Crossan, Kung and Schillebeex don’t read the Bible differently. I would argue that they read it in its original sense and rejected it, substituting their own theories about Christ for the original ideas.”.
Remember that Samuel didn’t know that it was the Lord who was speaking to him. Check out 1 Samuel Chapter 3.
Many of us think that God is talking to us when it is usually our imaginations. Or He is speaking to us but we’re not paying attention.
So reading the Scriptures and coming up with one’s own interpretation is a sure sign of disaster.
Case in point, the word used for witchcraft in the New Testament is “pharmakeia” from which we get pharmacy, does that mean all pharmacists are witches? Like the Arians, Mormons, Sabellians, etc. anyone can twist the Scriptures to support any heresy. This is why Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ left us his Church to guide us through the power of the Holy Spirit. We are the “body parts” of the Church but the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church.
I’m glad to see erick is still as asinine as ever!
erick:
Are you ever going to answer my question???
For the fifth time:
How do you know if the Bible itself is inspired?
If the bible actually contains the Word of God?
That all the books in it actually are in fact God-breathed?
That it doesn’t actually contain a collection of false teachings by questionable sources?
And don’t even dare tell me, “Oh, the Bible tells me so!”
What kind of circular argument is that?
That would go back to my questions above:
How do you know that these books are authentic?
That these were actually God-breathed?
That they’re inspired?
How do you know if, for example, that the pages in the books of the bible may have been written by phonies? by pretenders to the Faith? by even folks who may have had mental problems?!?
But, I guess, as I’ve said before:
I guess the best argument is as you would put it:
I ask: “How do you know that the bible is inspired? That it’s God-breathed? That its authors are not but just a bunch of phonies or mental cases?”
You’d say: “Because the Bible tells me so!”
I guess in some circles that would suffice as a sophisticated argument??? no???
But, then again, isn’t this as circular as you can get?!?!?
esau-
I see that the Prozac has worn out!.
Why are you arguing with yourself?
“And don’t even dare tell me, “Oh, the Bible tells me so!”
What kind of circular argument is that?
That would go back to my questions above”.
That is an interesting diatribe indeed.
However I have answered your questions plenty of times— you just cannot accept it!.
As a matter of fact just to keep things a little more interesting I shall answer you with a question:
How would a Jew living 100 years prior to the birth of Jesus know that the Old Testament was inspired?, that it contained the Word of God?, that it was in fact “Theopneustos”?
Would you then answer that he had relegated his mind to a “magisterium” (like you have)- or perhaps that the then infallible Jewish Church who had produced the Old Testament Canon of Scripture simply told him so?—
Erick,
How would a Jew living 100 years prior to the birth of Jesus know that the Old Testament was inspired?, that it contained the Word of God?, that it was in fact “Theopneustos”?
My understanding (limited at best) is that a pre-Christian Jew would have understood the Word of God to be something much broader than the written word. In other words, they would have viewed the unwritten testimony of the prophets as to the content of the Word of God with equal if not greater dignity.
As the fullness of time approached, the Scribes and the Rabbis came to be regarded as the best interpreters of the Law and the Word of God, such that by the time of Christ the rule was “do as they say, not as they do.” Christ Himself tells us that those who sat on the Chair of Moses (where does that term come from?) were authoritative. I’m sure that someone must have told Him they didn’t really need the teachers, they could decide for themselves what the Word of God said. Don’t you think?
Bro. Cadfael-
That’s fine and dandy, but the fact of the matter is you would be hard pressed to find in the Old Teatament another “help” to revelation other than the Word.
In any case your “explanation” does nothing to answer my question!.
Was there a “magisterium”?- was there an “episcopate” who would infallibly interpret, and define the extent of Scripture?- Was there a God chosen organization who was used to “gather” the canonical books of the O. T.?. Do we hear any Jew thanking this entity for “giving” and defining the Word for Israel?
Erick,
Was there a “magisterium”?- was there an “episcopate” who would infallibly interpret, and define the extent of Scripture?- Was there a God chosen organization who was used to “gather” the canonical books of the O. T.?. Do we hear any Jew thanking this entity for “giving” and defining the Word for Israel?
You seem to forget that the Fullness of Time had not yet arrived, the Word of God had not yet become flesh. Christ had not yet arrived on the scene, and it is not all that surprising that things were somewhat different before His Coming than they were after It.
You asked a question and I gave you one answer to it. I’m not sure what you think the rest of that “proves.”
Erick –
“Was there a “magisterium”?- was there an “episcopate” who would infallibly interpret, and define the extent of Scripture?- Was there a God chosen organization who was used to “gather” the canonical books of the O. T.?.
What do you call the Levitical Priesthood… chopped liver? The authority of Moses was passed down, as Jesus said “they sit in Moses’ seat”.
\
The Jews did not have an O.T. canon for the same reason that the early Church did not have a N.T. canon… because they were busy WRITING it!
They knew the law of Moses was authoritative because of… authoritative Tradition!
Part of why I became a Catholic (from having been a Protestant) was because I longed for the Church that Christ Founded, but realized, finally, that within the Prot milieu such a Church not only didn’t exist, but was just impossible.
From the standpoint of Sola Scriptura The best that can be had are little clubs of people that agree with one another. Now, you might find a bigger or smaller club, but it is basically only a gathering of like-minded people. The idea of the Universal Church was just a big INVISIBLE club of people one agreed with. Agreed “in the Holy Spirit”, to be sure, but this also was a problem. What does one do with all those people who have prayerfully read the Bible and have (“in the Holy Spirit”, to be sure) been led to disagree strongly with you (and not just in some small matters)?
The only logical answer – without saying that the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion – is to say that one party must be wrong, either because they didn’t really have the guidance of the Holy Spirit (though they thought they did) or because they didn’t understand Him properly, or were blinded by sin or bias or whatever.
Often (and to my shame), when I entered a church as a young zealous Prot, I entered as it’s judge. I sat in judgement on the preaching, mostly, but also the style of worship, the (perceived) attitude of the congregation, and other things. When I visited a church, I took note of how they measured up to my (or, what I considered Biblical) standards. My worship was polluted by such arrogance.
Now, when I enter a church, it is my own life and my conscience that I examine. I come to receive Christ – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – and everything else fades in importance.
Do I still see problems? Shortcomings? Of course, and there are abuses that I hear of in other places that I hope I would not countenance in my own parish, but, now it is not I who judge, it is the law of the Church. I am free to focus on my own shortcomings, which are many. I am free to worship.
From what I saw as a young Prot, jumping ship to join another congregation was common. When the preaching, or the worship style, or the life of the church got too far out of line with one’s own ideas, one simply found some other church that suited better.
As a Catholic, this is a much more limited possiblitiy, and in fact cuts against the grain of Catholic thought. Each parish has its own church, and that’s it. If there are problems in the local parish, one is honor-bound to stay and try to help address them. There may be situations that are SO bad that one would have to find another parish, but one would still be under the same bishop in most cases.
erick:
That is an interesting diatribe indeed.
However I have answered your questions plenty of times— you just cannot accept it!.
I loved that about you!
You accuse people here of putting forth a circular argument.
Yet, the fool that you are continues to proclaim that you believe the bible is inspired because “the bible tells you so”!
But, if the Church hadn’t determined the Canon of the New Testament in the first place, and you alone were the one to actually sort out the many books that existed then to figure out which of these was Scripture and which of them was not–
Oh how convenient that it was because of the authority of the Church, the Church established by Christ himself, that actually determined the Canon and preserved the Word throughout the centuries, that you are able by hindsight to determine just which books are actually inspired, God-breathed, etc.!
Where are you to find in the Books of the Gospels, in the Pauline letters, where are you to find in any Epistle in the Bible, the names of the books, any mention in any of these that would authenticate certain books as being Scripture from those which were not???
What is your means of determining just what is Scripture from those that are not?
Is it because they were written by an Apostle??? How, then, would you know this as a matter of fact??? Not all these books were, in fact, written by an Apostle. Even those that are purported to having been written by such a one, various scholars to this day maintain they were not.
Also, what are we to make of the Letter to the Hebrews???
How do you know that it is part of Scripture??? Do you know who, in fact, wrote it???
If you deny the authority of the Church, then you shouldn’t place your trust in its determination of the Canon of the New Testament and should proceed to resurrect all the books the Church rejected as being Scripture time and again in the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) and decide for yourself if these were, in fact, Scripture or not!
If you were to continue to place your trust in the very books contained in the New Testament, then you deceive yourself since you are placing your own trust in the very Church that decided these books being Scripture!
After all, how can you trust the Church as it is but a man-made institution established by the evil powers of Rome, who could have but intentionally made mistakes, or, better yet, served an ulterior motive, in putting together the Canon of the New Testament — the Canon which Protestants even to this day still trust! The Church, with all its wiles and wicked intentions, could have declared a book back then during the time of the Councils to not be Scripture when, in fact, it actually was!
So much for the fallible, man-made Roman invention: the Catholic Church — eh??? So, as I have asked, why trust it and the Canon of books it had declared to be New Testament Scripture???
Thus, continue to ride the waves of Sola Scriptura until all of these waves of 37,000 denominations finally crash in upon you and all your cohorts when the time of judgment arrives and you continue to deny the One True Church — the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!
Finally!
I have not been able to post a comment since Dec. 29th. I kept getting an error message.
I hope everyone had a Mary ChristMass!
I could not respond to erick or Joseph D’Hippolito at the time of their comments but look forward to being able to respond now.
“Inocencio, you are the perfect example of a Catholic I described earlier who confuses loyalty to ecclesiastical bureaucracy with faith in Christ”.
I am faithful to the Church Christ founded and died for because the Church is His Bride and the two are one flesh. He founded it with His authority to teach all that He commanded. He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide those whom He sent with His authority to all Truth and bring to their remembrance all that He said.
I am faithful to Christ through His Church even though the Mystical Body of Christ is made of fallen sinners like you and me.
Exellent definition as to what “sola ecclesia” leads to!!!.
erick, I repeat I as a Catholic I believe in Sola Dei Verbum. And no matter how hard you pretend otherwise the Word of God came to us first through spoken word then written epistles. Sacred Tradition came first and confirms Sacred Scripture. You keep saying “your” theology and Rome’s theology. We are following the Apostolic teachings that come from Christ Himself. That is why He sent forth the Apostles with His authority to teach all nations. He promised to be with and still is with the Church He founded.
Have a Blessed Feast of the Epiphany.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio-
Don’t get me wrong, I respect your views.
I just happen to think you are wrong- just as you think I am wrong!.
Having said that I do not think you could make a good case about Sacred Tradition being equal with the written record.
It would be inexcusable to think that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism.
When God gave The Law to Moses it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. It was not to be tampered with- augmented, or diminished, IN ANY WAY! (Deut 4:2).
I don’t see Sacred Tradition being placed inside The Ark- but The Law was, signifying its supreme authority in the religiuos lives of the Jews FOREVER.
That’s why when Jesus accused them of elevating Tradition to the equality of the written record( to the point of nullifying it)- it was so harsh(Is 8:20).
Sola Scriptura does not say that the written record contains all of the truth of the world, just all of the truth NECESSARY for salvation, instruction etc, etc.
Do I believe in Tradition?…sure I do, but I believe that it is sub-servient to Scripture.
In essence this is one of the main aspects of what separates us theologically.
But, erick, on what authority did the people accept the law that had been given to Moses?
There was, initially, the testimony of the miracles themselves, but afterward, when what was left was the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, the altar of sacrifice… who authoritatively handed these down to the people of God? The Levitical priesthood!
Did they always do the job they should have? No. But this fact did not in any way take away their legitimate authority before God.
If a unified, visible, earthly, authoritative, institutional, hierarchical Church is a bad idea in principle, then why did God lay out the pattern for exactly such a thing in the OT? It was no invention of men, unless they swiped the idea from the Almighty.
Israel was also a “nation of priests”, but that did not keep them from having an authoritative ministerial priesthood.
Tim J-
The Levitical Priesthood did not act as the “sole authority”- except in the maintenance and worship legislature of the Temple.
The Levitical Priesthood in no way advanced an ideology that they were the only interpreters of the Word- much less that it was because of them that the Old Testament Canon was in place.
The Church as unified and visible etc. etc.- as you say IS NOT A BAD IDEA!- I hope I don’t come across as having said that!.
But The Church is the KEPPER AND SERVANT OF THE WORD– just as the Priesthood of Israel was- not the other way around.
There is only so much you can make an analogy of the Church in the Old Testament with anyway.
I’m sure the analogy would stop when we see that Israel fell many times because of disobedience—yet that would not be the case with Rome , i’m sure you would argue.
So… yes, I believe in Church AND tradition, but only as keepers and servants of the Word.
I do not believe that infallibility HAS to be an attribute of the true Church of God – just as Israel did not need infallibility to be the Chosen People of God.
esau- You keep proving my point!. if Rome “determined”, “preserved”, “authenticated”, “put together”, ( I’m quoting YOU)- the Bible,
Then Rome is your standard–ie. Sola Ecclesia!.
The Word of God is nothing!—It cannot speak for Itself- It has no inherent authority- It has no Divine origin—until Rome steps in and says so.
Sounds like Sola Ecclesia to me!.
Erick,
You say that the Law was written and that the Jews were a Sola Scriptura people, yet the scroll that we now refer to Deuteronomy was lost to the Jewish people for hundreds upon hundreds of years until it was discovered (and no doubt Realist would say wrote) during the reign of King Josiah.
Therefore if the Jews were only a people of the Book they were not under what laws were contained in the Book of Deuteronomy because it didn’t exist yet!!! The Jews had to rely on the Tradition that existed in the Book until it could be recovered.
Dr. Eric-
Obviously the core of what I have argued has not penetrated!.
Erick, infallibility in teaching is not the same as infallibility in behavior. The Church has never argued her servants are infallibly good people. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is because of the sinful fallibility of her servants that Catholics so rightly point to her infallibility in teaching. After all, which would be the greater miracle, a Church led by angels who speak nothing but truth or a Church led by sinners who teach nothing but truth.
As far as the OT is concerned, there was a Sanhedrin which acted as “an authoritative body to interpret teaching. Moses had established the original Sanhedrin. ‘So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and placed them round about the tent. Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventy elders’ (Num 11:24).
“Over time, the ancient rabbis of the Sanhedrin recognized that their interpretations were subject to yeridat hadorot, the decline of generations.”
But the Sanhedrin of Redemption established by Christ was given the Paraclete who Christ promised “will guide you into all the truth.” This is the opposite of yeridat hadorot, the decline of doctrine. It is aliyat hadorot, the development of doctrine.
This is why the Church can come up with doctrines like the Holy Trinity which add terminology to the deposit of the faith that is not found within Scripture itself.
No Christian can, by definition of the word “Christian”, reject the doctrine of the Trinity and still consider themselves to be Christian but if you ever let Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses into your home and play some Scripture Showdown, you will realize their doctrines, while not Christian, are undeniably Scriptural in that, like anyone, they can spout off countless proof-texts that supposedly support any manner of crazy beliefs.
You do not adhere to what Mormons or JHs preach nor do you trace as the source of any of your personal beliefs to either of those faith groups.
Most of your beliefs (~90%) are identical to, and can be historically attributed to, the very same teachings of the Catholic Church. You have to agree with what she has consistently preached and defended about Christ over the centuries or else, quite honestly, you cannot call yourself Christian. You also do not reject what she teaches about the infallibility and divinely-inspired nature of Sacred Scripture.
But there are also teachings you reject outright. This begs two questions:
Why?
and
By what authority?
The second one is important because, as you pointed out in your last post, the OT priests became corrupt and very evil. Yet God did not permit any form of OT Mosaic Protestantism (no matter how “pure”) even though the Bible records such attempted theological movements.
[The above quote comes from an Envoy vol 7.3 article by Martin K. Barrack, a former Jew a copy can be found at
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/articles/jesusofnazarethkingofthejews.htm ]
Erick,
I would like to continue approaching this discussion from the standpoint of what I presume to be your acceptance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Though undeniably scriptural, words like “three in one” or “Trinity” are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Therefore, these terms are what we call extra-scriptural. Note also that even though these terms are not to be found in Scripture, they are essential ideas which must be accepted by the Christian in order to be saved. You cannot consciously deny the divinity of Jesus nor His unity with God the Father and the Holy Spirit and go to Heaven. Period.
This doctrine was developed, via aliyat hadorot, by the Catholic Church. It was also defined and consistently defended from heresy through the centuries by that very same Church. Its acceptance by Christians of all stripes is presumed. Yet the very same people who accept this unalterable theological teaching give no thought to how it came to be understood.
Most of us can agree that the Church (or early Christian communities, or whatever) came to this infallibly authoritative understanding by the guidance of the Paraclete — meaning we accept this as divinely revealed, eternal, Truth.
But this begs the question: Where did the Paraclete go? There are only a number of possible options:
1) The Paraclete left once the doctrine of the Trinity was established and the canon of Scripture decided.
2) The Paraclete is still here and maintains a GENERAL presence within the overall Christian community.
3) The Paraclete is still here but does not reside with any one specific religious community Christian or otherwise.
4) The Paraclete is still here but has left the corrupt Catholic Church and now resides with and infallibly guides another, more worthy Christian faith community.
5) The Paraclete is still here and continues to reside with and guide the very same Church that gave rise to all the teachings that are universally recognized as orthodox Christian theology.
Let’s go through these one by one.
#1 is right out not true. To believe this would be to take Christ’s various promises for His Church “gates of Hell shall not prevail, “I shall be with you always”, etc as meaningless, or worse deceptive and lying. It would also be seen as a failure of the Church established by Christ to persevere in the truth. Believe this and you might as well be Mormon.
#2 is improbable because a general presence would not create unity, but destroy it thus defeating why the Paraclete has been sent in the first place. If there is a general presence among the Christian community, what about instances where Christians, not just Protestants and Catholics, disagree on essential issues like regenerative Baptism? Or the fact that some Christians exclude Catholics from Christianity while some do not?
In the case of disagreement, who can claim to have the guidance of the Paraclete? Honestly, anyone can claim. But if one person is right and one wrong (as is the case in regenerative baptism) then only one person is RIGHT in claiming guidance by the Holy Spirit. The problem? There is no way of proving this. In the end, you get fissapariousness and total breakdown of unity.
You could argue that such differences are not important but that is like arguing it is not important how you are saved — whether it is by faith, grace, sacrament, or some combination of the above.
#3 probably appeals to moral relativists but is nothing more than a more extreme interpretation of #2. Why would Christ bother to die on the Cross and establish a Church if “truth” could be found in faiths that openly deny these facts?
#4 is the Mormon option. It has the same problems as #s 2 and 3 — what proof can be offered that Truth resides with and guides this faith group vice some other faith group? Also, if the Paraclete can leave the Catholic Church, what assurance can your faith group offer to show THIS church will NOT loose the guidance by the Holy Spirit?
#5 is Scriptural because it takes Christ at his word. It is also Scriptural in terms of OT typology as well as the wedding ceremony between Christ and His ONE Bride in Revelations. It is also theologically and logically consistent because it recognizes the Church that revealed the most important doctrines in Christianity.
These are the only options.
Stubblespark: Can I just say that’s one of the most clear, well-thought-out, and concise descriptions of the situation that I’ve read in a long time?
StubbleSpark, Let me second Jared on that.
StubbleSpark-
1-I think you are doing a lot of twisting (despite how “clear” and “well thought” your peers seem to think your argument was).
For one thing , can we assume this “magisterium” is to be blamed for the captivity of Israel by Babylon?….After all according to your revisionist history of the Hebrews, it was this “magisterium” who was in sole control of interpreting the Scriptures which they had denied to follow.
2- Your assesment that “the Church can come up with doctrines like The Holy Trinity…”, is almost blasphemous. The Church discovered the doctrine, because it is a part of the nature of God….Rome had nothing to do with “coming up” with The Trinity…it was always there. This will be a major point of contention in our discussion because here again we are assuming that Rome had all this to do with Christian theology, which I deny.
3- You wrongly assume I HAVE to trace my faith back to Rome, because of your erroneous interpretation of history. You think Rome *IS* the only Church founded by Christ. I don’t.
4- Why, you ask, do I reject certain teachings of Rome. Well… if you will read my post of 2 :07:02 you will see why.
4- By what authority you ask?– there you go again. The Word of God is “in-active”, “non-authoritative”, as a matter of fact “non- existing” if it wasn’t for the great work of Rome. Sola Eclessia !.
5- The doctrine of the Trinity was developed by Rome?—according to whom?…Rome,perhaps?.
6-Your points on the Paraclete are clearly biased, The Holy Spirit is not in the possesion of an organization where only a “few” delight in His presence or guidance…you are begining to sound like a Jehovah Witness, who says the same thing you do about the Watchtower. Your other points make no sense since “unity” is not something Jesus came to give us anyhow!(matt 10:34-36).
7- You say “this is Scriptural because it takes Christ at His word”- wrong again, it takes Rome at her word.–You further state that it is Scriptural because of O.T typology….well inso far as it agrees with Rome.
I just showed you some O.T typology that contradicts Rome .
There I have answered your questions.
Now, can you answer mine, posted 11:33:27 ?.
Erick,
Why do you keep using Rome?
You also need to acknowledge Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Constantinople, Cappadocia, etc…
They were centers of Christianity in their own right.
Erick,
I agree with you everything you said about the Church revealing an eternal truth about God by clearly defining, for the good of all Christians of all generations, the Doctrine of the Trinity. Catholics are not relativists, so no one would argue that God somehow “became” triune at the revealing of the doctrine.
That would be just silly.
I am glad you called my assertion “almost blasphemy”. Almost blasphemy is still NOT blasphemy and therefore, permissible.
Whether or not you personally feel inclined to trace orthodox Christianity to the Church, her councils, and doctrines, is not an issue. Any failure to acknowledge the role the Catholic Church has played over the past 732,691 days in defending and preserving the faith would not find an iota of support among even quasi-literate Bible scholars, historians, or theologians.
The reasons you gave for rejecting the Church are the same as the ones you gave for disregarding outright the OT-era oral tradition and interpretive authority: people were bad.
Your reason is immaterial. Especially since it would disqualify you from claiming that same authority yourself; sinner that you are. All humans are fallen creatures and subject to temptations as I said (in my post in response to your post), you ignore Christ’s plea to judge the goodness and veracity of the claims of spiritual authorities without resorting to simplistic ad hominum. You have to be open to the fact that even people you judge harshly could be purveyors of truth.
Your typology is not typology — unless you mean to say that the Catholic Church is in fact in the Bible (which would inadvertently support our claim that it is). What you did was to make a simple tropological eisegesis comparison between the OT faith and your emotionally-charged views of the historical Church.
Again, OT priests were killing babies and having sex with prostitutes in the temple and still God lightning-bolted upstart OT Protestants.
You disagree outright with Christ on the following points:
1) Unity was meant to be the sign to the world that the Church was made by God and sent by God (John 17.11; Mt 12.25,30; John 10.16)
2) The Church was meant to be authoritative and that authority would triumphant against the powers of Hell itself (Matt 16.18, 18.17)
3) Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to reveal truth and guide the teachers. (John 14.16, I Cor 2.11)
It is important to note you do not have alternate interpretations of these passages, you simply beg to differ. This was the clincher that led to my conversion when, while dragging my feet on certain passages, I said to my Catholic girlfriend “I can see how those passages COULD support your interpretations but …”
To which, she answered “You can’t argue with those interpretations because that’s what those passages MEAN.”
This shocked me. But I attacked the passages very aggressively nonetheless. When I found no other plausible understanding for those scripture interpretations, I became Catholic.
I notice that you quite predictably choose option #2 as regarding who is guided by the Paraclete today:
“The Holy Spirit is not in the possesion of an organization where only a ‘few’ delight in His presence or guidance.”
Does this sound like the Messiah agrees with your “expert” Bible scholarship:
“If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. ” (John 14.15-17).
Erick, you said:
“Do I believe in Tradition?…sure I do, but I believe that it is sub-servient to Scripture.”
The Church does not teach that Tradition is superior to Scripture. On the contrary, any tradition that contradicts Scripture would be considered invalid. The opposite case, that Scripture could be invalidated by a given tradition could never happen because we do not believe Tradition has that kind of power.
However, we do not use this fact to discount outright the fact that the Church was created by God and ordained by God to bring truth to man. The Church predates the canon by about four centuries. The first Christians did not even have Bibles. We also recognize that this was God’s plan for transmitting truth to mankind.
Also, we make a distinction between Sacred Tradition and other traditions (like veils, etc). Sacred Tradition is, specifically, “the living transmission of the message of the Gospel of the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit [ie, the Bible], are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition.”(CCC)
In other words, it is wrong to put big-T Tradition in opposition to Scripture because the two are an organic unity and not meant to be taken differently. Seeing as the Jews and the early Christians had to transmit their faith orally from generation to generation, they do not share your attitude that dismisses the possibility that oral Tradition could be God-breathed.
As far as little-t traditions (such as the tithing of dill and cumin you referenced) are concerned these are not essential truths of the faith (like the Trinity or the Divinely-inspired nature of Scripture).
I would also like to point out that after criticizing their elevation of these non-essential traditions, the Messiah says “these [the tithing of dill and cumin] you should do.” So He does not even condemn little-t traditions outright.
Tradition and Scripture are one just as the Trinity is three-in-one. Just as Truth is God and God is unity. Truth cannot contradict truth. Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict or invalidate each other.
StubbleSpark-
To hold to a view that is “permissible” in light of it being almost blasphemy, and somehow recognize it and be proud- says a lot about the rest of your revisionist view of Christianity.
Let me ask you—How do you know there is a God?.
Rome has clouded your judgement on your Bible interpretation:
1- Unity for the sake of unity was never meant to be a “sign” of God being the author of the Church- Rom 16:17.
2- That the Church was meant to be authoritative—I have not argued against this !–, you just have to prove that infallibility is analogous to authority, and then go beyond this to prove that it is Rome who God established as the sole interpreter and definer of Scripture.
3- That God gave the Holy Spirit to the Church– I agree!—Who is the Church?.
There are my alternate interpretations that you said I did not have!.
You say “any tradition that contradicts Scripture would be considered invalid”- that says nothing at all, since Rome has already judged prudent to add Sacred Tradition to worship, so your argument is quite redundant!.
Besides you cannot say that Sacred Tradition is “Theoupneustos” like Scripture is, so tradition could nullify the Word of God just as Jesus said it could-Mark7:6-13.
“There are my alternate interpretations that you said I did not have!”
I see denials; I don’t see alternates.
“There is only so much you can make an analogy of the Church in the Old Testament with anyway.”
True enough. I would not argue a one-to-one correspondence at all. The OT “Church” was not the blueprint for the Catholic Church, but many aspects are repeated. In many ways, it pre-figured the NT Church, including the ministerial priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mass.
“I’m sure the analogy would stop when we see that Israel fell many times because of disobedience—yet that would not be the case with Rome , i’m sure you would argue.”
It depends on what you mean by “fell”. Israel certainly never fell beyond restoration – and hasn’t yet – and the True Church cannot. But that does not mean that there will not be desperate times, or leaders that fail. There have been a few horrid Popes, but the Holy Spirit prevented them from proclaiming doctrine.
Of COURSE the Church did not “come up” with the Trinity! But it was by no means revealed clearly in Scripture. You may THINK it IS, but I would argue that you take for granted the Tradition of the Church on the matter. There are yet no small number of those who reject that the scriptures proclaim a triune God.
Even the nature of the Incarnation is foggy enough in the NT as to allow Gnosticism and other heresies to get a grip on the early Church. It was only the magisterial authority of the Church that allowed those lies finally to be defeated.
This is actually a good opportunity to see how magisterial teaching works… the teaching office of the Church did not INVENT the Trinity, but only proclaimed it as True Doctrine and thereby safeguarded it. The authority of the Church “bound” all Christians to this doctrine (“What you bind on Earth…), and those who reject it are outside the Church (The Keys to the Kingdom).
Anyone with even a scant knowledge of history would have to acknowledge that if not for the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible. Period. You may not like the sound of that, but it is a fact.
The triune nature of our God is reflected in the three means of Divine Revelation; Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium – one can not subsist without the other two, and where one is, there are the other two.
When you give submission to the Holy Scriptures, you submit also to Tradition and the Magisterium, though you don’t know it.
Tim J-
“If it were not for the Catholic faith there would be no Bible?”—-Tim, the fact of the matter is that your line of argumentation (if you could call it that!)- would leave one being thankful to Rome for God Himself!.
Furthermore your argument that Scripture = magisterium = tradition = Scripture is once more evidence of sola ecclesia.
The Bereans were considered “noble” for searching THE SCRIPTURES daily to check the teachings of Paul!!!—no evidence here of a “magisterium” or “infallible authority” to appeal to, It was the Scriptures!!! ( acts 17: 10,11 ).
Obviously the Bereans would not submit their minds to a “magisterium” nor tradition , as you do!.
“…your line of argumentation…would leave one being thankful to Rome for God Himself!”
The logic of this escapes me.
erick:
Because what I’ve written is long, I’ve section my comments accordingly so that your otherwise brilliant mind could actually follow:
THE QUESTION RE: THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
The Canon of Scripture (i.e, just what books actually belong in the Bible) can’t be found in the individuals books that comprise the bible. You can’t go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books are authentically inspired and can be deemed as Scripture. Now, as I’ve stated in my previous post here (that is, my Jan 3, 2007 10:47:54 AM post where I submitted various significant points that you have yet to refute) there were so many other books in addition to those that actually became part of the bible that the Church had to decide which of these formed Scripture.
Now, as I’ve said, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, you shouldn’t trust the books that the Church considered as part of the New Testament, which Protestants to this day still put faith in. That is, you might as well do like what the Jesus Seminar folks are doing and re-consider all the books that are currently in the bible, but also, in addition, take up the other books that the Catholic Church actually rejected time and again in of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
But, again, what is your criteria for determining if a book is part of Scripture? Is it because it’s written by an Apostle?
Many bible scholars would beg to differ.
Do you actually consider Hebrews as part of the Scripture? To this day, nobody actually knows who wrote it. Even Protestant bible scholars know that! Even my Protestant minister, who was the head of a big congregation throughout the United States, acknowledged that and many other Protestant seminary professors as well.
But, if you, yourself, actually do accept Hebrews as part of Scripture, then why???? What makes it so special??? What makes it authentic??? What makes you actually think it’s God-breathed??? For all you know, it could’ve been written by whatever other phoney in the past, even who may be a mental case!
Now, a lot of folks (including you it seems) underplay this fact — although Dr. Martinus Luther actually acknowledged the fact that “if it weren’t for the papists, we (Protestants) wouldn’t have the bible”!
Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE IN THE EARLY CHURCH
There were huge disagreements in the Early Church between St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius — I’ve read, especially in ecclesiastical history, where many rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews; said they were not inspired. Many in the early church actually accepted the Epistle of Clement as Scripture — it was read in Corinth for over a hundred years as Sacred Scripture after Clement died. There were disagreements as well over the Old Testament Canon. Whether books like Baruch was inspired and others. So there were disagreements.
The Church preceded Scripture and, in fact, it’s the Church that decided what books were to be included in the bible.
FF Bruce during his lifetime is known as kind of the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it. That is a matter of historical fact.
You cannot go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books actually belong to the bible.
Again, as I’ve requested from you countless times, I would be very interested in your criteria in determining just exactly what makes a book Scripture from one that actuall isn’t??? And if you really do not trust the Catholic Church, then why trust what they’ve said are the books that comprise the New Testament???
THE DOGMAS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
Virtually every dogma of the Christian Faith is not found explicitly in the bible, in Scripture. The word Trinity is not there. It was even a Catholic who coined the word, Theophilus of Antioch in 181 AD. Incarnation also is not explicitly found in Scripture. The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity.
Just who of these Protestant folks, from the hundreds of contradicting biblical interpretations, have the right interpretation and exactly the precise set of beliefs that go way back to the Early Christian Church, to the very time of the Apostles, all of which were originally transmitted orally?
I believe that’s exactly why God gave us the Church to begin with!
If you look at Scripture, there is a lively awareness of the Faith being passed down in a variety of means – sometimes in written form and sometimes not in written form. The original preaching of the Apostles was oral and Jesus’ teaching was oral (he didn’t write any books of Scripture) and so they lived in a largely oral culture back then and, as a result, there was a much heavier dependence on the spoken word and other elements of Tradition like liturgical action that were not written down.
That Tradition then – I should explain, ‘That which is handed on’ – and so if you have the body of Christian belief, it was something that was handed onto us from Jesus and the Apostles – part of it was handed on in written form but part of it went beyond writing, which is one of the reasons that there are some questions that Scripture doesn’t seem to answer clearly.
Like, for example, the question whether or not you should baptize babies or not; or whether you baptize by immersion or not.
We know people are supposed to be baptized but we don’t have the details of how it was supposed to work: whether you did it for babies as well, whether you could do it by pouring.
The reason for that is pretty clear: Scripture doesn’t answer those questions because it expects for you to be an Early Christian, reading about the Church but looking to the practice of the Church to answer those questions for you.
In fact, that’s why the Church is said in 1 Timothy 3:15 to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth:
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
AND
Paul actually says:
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Even 1 Cor 11 which uses the same Greek word “Paradosis”: “I commend you brothers for holding fast to the Traditions” as well as in 2 Thess 3:6 says the same thing.
So, were called to hold fast to Tradition and, as Catholics, we actually draw from the Old Testament.
THE “TRADITION” IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE ORAL TORAH & THE WRITTEN TORAH
The Jews had two fountains from which they received God’s Word.
According to RABBI HAYIM DONIN in the book “TO BE A JEW”, he says:
“We believe that God’s Will was also made manifest in the Oral Tradition, or Oral Torah, which also had its source in Sinai revealed to Moses and, then, orally taught by him to the religious heads of Israel, and the Written Torah itself alludes to such oral instructions.”
THE SAME IS SAID BY RABBI JACOB NEUSNER:
He points out that the Jewish Community from which Christianity sprang has always understood the Torah to be written (he calls that the Sefer Torah) and the Oral Torah (The Torah She-Bal Peh). Along with the written Torah, the Oral Torah which Moses received at Sinai, was transmitted to Joshua and to Joshua’s elders and to the prophets and to the prophets of the Men of the Great Assembly.”
Remember, Jesus acknowledged that Tradition. He made a distinction between the traditions of men in Matthew 15 that are bad from the AUTHORITATIVE Tradition that Jesus, himself, acknowledged such as the teaching of the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23.
Now, do you know why Jesus said those things to Peter in Matthew 16:18????
Mt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Of course, you’ll probably revert back to your magnificent and brilliant argument: “I believe the books of the bible are inspired, God-breathed, authentic, etc. because the Bible tells me so, and that’s the only authority I go by and that is all I know!”
bill912-
No Rome?— No Bible!
No Bible?—…. get it now?.
Erick: “Unity for the sake of unity was never meant to be a ‘sign’ of God being the author of the Church- Rom 16:17.
But Romans 16:17 says “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.”
This is a verse urging Christians to seek unity and avoid heretics. It does not support your claim. Also it synthesizes perfectly with the words of Christ that the Church have unity “so the world may know that thou hast sent me.” (John 17.23) This is the verse I would like an alternative interpretation for. What does it mean to you?
The reason for the “almost” blasphemous distinction is because it emphasizes two things:
1) By both our doctrines, you have no such authority to proclaim anything I say “blasphemous.” There is no reason to assume your personal feelings of repulsion are God-breathed for you much less for the greater Christian community.
2) It demonstrates a lack of definitive understanding on your part exactly HOW it blasphemous. In other words, you are merely arguing from emotion and not from Scripture or dogma.
You also said: “That God gave the Holy Spirit to the Church– I agree!—Who is the Church?”
I am sure you meant the question to be rhetorical, but something tells me you cannot even begin to answer that question. Which means, by your own doctrine, you cannot even begin to say who is guided by the Holy Spirit and who is not. Hence you are trapped in the conundrum of option #2.
Then you said to Tim: “your line of argumentation … would leave one being thankful to Rome for God Himself!”
This is at least the second time you resorted to a preposterous overstatement as counter-argument. Nothing Tim or any other Catholic said on this post comes even close to supporting that. This is not even a matter of nuance, you simply overreaching for effect.
To illustrate why this is fallacious, I will use the same logic with a different example:
Tim: “Anyone with even a scant knowledge of history would have to acknowledge that if not for the French army the Rosetta Stone would not have been discovered.”
Erick: “your line of argumentation would leave one being thankful to the French Army for Ptolemy V Himself!”
This is non-sequitur. Saying the truth, that the Church carefully culled the books of the Bible over a four century time period, in no way even insinuates that the Church invented God.
Unless you are Dan Brown.
We are, however, thankful to God for His Church.
As far as Act 17.11 is concerned, I have several points:
1) The Church has always taught that studying Scriptures was commendable and good and even offers indulgences for reading the Bible to this very day. Nothing in this passage contradicts Church teaching. We are not a “Sola Ecclesia” faith. Nor is “sola ecclesia” a doctrine that has ever been proclaimed by the Church — even during the Reformation when it would have been politically prudent to do so.
2) Praising someone for studying scriptures is not the same as proclaiming against the teaching authority of the Church. This would have been especially ironic as Paul’s letters are all examples of his exercise of interpretive and teaching authority among true Christians. When Luther tried this, it backfired horribly and his own students laughed in his face. If this were the traditional view of Christians, the explosion of denominations would be 1,500 years older than it is.
3) “Scriptures” in this verse does not mean the Bible. This passage describes events 400 years before the Bible was decided. It could have included OT prophetic texts or other written accounts that did not make it into the OT canon but there simply is not enough information here to assume these righteous Jews were being commended for rejecting a teaching authority.
erick:
Because what I’ve written is long, I’ve section my comments accordingly so that your otherwise brilliant mind could actually follow:
THE QUESTION RE: THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
The Canon of Scripture (i.e, just what books actually belong in the Bible) can’t be found in the individuals books that comprise the bible. You can’t go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books are authentically inspired and can be deemed as Scripture. Now, as I’ve stated in my previous post here (that is, my Jan 3, 2007 10:47:54 AM post where I submitted various significant points that you have yet to refute) there were so many other books in addition to those that actually became part of the bible that the Church had to decide which of these formed Scripture.
Now, as I’ve said, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, you shouldn’t trust the books that the Church considered as part of the New Testament, which Protestants to this day still put faith in. That is, you might as well do like what the Jesus Seminar folks are doing and re-consider all the books that are currently in the bible, but also, in addition, take up the other books that the Catholic Church actually rejected time and again in of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
But, again, what is your criteria for determining if a book is part of Scripture? Is it because it’s written by an Apostle?
Many bible scholars would beg to differ.
Do you actually consider Hebrews as part of the Scripture? To this day, nobody actually knows who wrote it. Even Protestant bible scholars know that! Even my Protestant minister, who was the head of a big congregation throughout the United States, acknowledged that and many other Protestant seminary professors as well.
But, if you, yourself, actually do accept Hebrews as part of Scripture, then why???? What makes it so special??? What makes it authentic??? What makes you actually think it’s God-breathed??? For all you know, it could’ve been written by whatever other phoney in the past, even who may be a mental case!
Now, a lot of folks (including you it seems) underplay this fact — although Dr. Martinus Luther actually acknowledged the fact that “if it weren’t for the papists, we (Protestants) wouldn’t have the bible”!
Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE IN THE EARLY CHURCH
There were huge disagreements in the Early Church between St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius — I’ve read, especially in ecclesiastical history, where many rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews; said they were not inspired. Many in the early church actually accepted the Epistle of Clement as Scripture — it was read in Corinth for over a hundred years as Sacred Scripture after Clement died. There were disagreements as well over the Old Testament Canon. Whether books like Baruch was inspired and others. So there were disagreements.
The Church preceded Scripture and, in fact, it’s the Church that decided what books were to be included in the bible.
FF Bruce during his lifetime is known as kind of the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it. That is a matter of historical fact.
You cannot go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books actually belong to the bible.
Again, as I’ve requested from you countless times, I would be very interested in your criteria in determining just exactly what makes a book Scripture from one that actuall isn’t??? And if you really do not trust the Catholic Church, then why trust what they’ve said are the books that comprise the New Testament???
THE DOGMAS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
Virtually every dogma of the Christian Faith is not found explicitly in the bible, in Scripture. The word Trinity is not there. It was even a Catholic who coined the word, Theophilus of Antioch in 181 AD. Incarnation also is not explicitly found in Scripture. The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity.
Just who of these Protestant folks, from the hundreds of contradicting biblical interpretations, have the right interpretation and exactly the precise set of beliefs that go way back to the Early Christian Church, to the very time of the Apostles, all of which were originally transmitted orally?
I believe that’s exactly why God gave us the Church to begin with!
If you look at Scripture, there is a lively awareness of the Faith being passed down in a variety of means – sometimes in written form and sometimes not in written form. The original preaching of the Apostles was oral and Jesus’ teaching was oral (he didn’t write any books of Scripture) and so they lived in a largely oral culture back then and, as a result, there was a much heavier dependence on the spoken word and other elements of Tradition like liturgical action that were not written down.
That Tradition then – I should explain, ‘That which is handed on’ – and so if you have the body of Christian belief, it was something that was handed onto us from Jesus and the Apostles – part of it was handed on in written form but part of it went beyond writing, which is one of the reasons that there are some questions that Scripture doesn’t seem to answer clearly.
Like, for example, the question whether or not you should baptize babies or not; or whether you baptize by immersion or not.
We know people are supposed to be baptized but we don’t have the details of how it was supposed to work: whether you did it for babies as well, whether you could do it by pouring.
The reason for that is pretty clear: Scripture doesn’t answer those questions because it expects for you to be an Early Christian, reading about the Church but looking to the practice of the Church to answer those questions for you.
In fact, that’s why the Church is said in 1 Timothy 3:15 to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth:
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
AND
Paul actually says:
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Even 1 Cor 11 which uses the same Greek word “Paradosis”: “I commend you brothers for holding fast to the Traditions” as well as in 2 Thess 3:6 says the same thing.
So, were called to hold fast to Tradition and, as Catholics, we actually draw from the Old Testament.
THE “TRADITION” IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE ORAL TORAH & THE WRITTEN TORAH
The Jews had two fountains from which they received God’s Word.
According to RABBI HAYIM DONIN in the book “TO BE A JEW”, he says:
“We believe that God’s Will was also made manifest in the Oral Tradition, or Oral Torah, which also had its source in Sinai revealed to Moses and, then, orally taught by him to the religious heads of Israel, and the Written Torah itself alludes to such oral instructions.”
THE SAME IS SAID BY RABBI JACOB NEUSNER:
He points out that the Jewish Community from which Christianity sprang has always understood the Torah to be written (he calls that the Sefer Torah) and the Oral Torah (The Torah She-Bal Peh). Along with the written Torah, the Oral Torah which Moses received at Sinai, was transmitted to Joshua and to Joshua’s elders and to the prophets and to the prophets of the Men of the Great Assembly.”
Remember, Jesus acknowledged that Tradition. He made a distinction between the traditions of men in Matthew 15 that are bad from the AUTHORITATIVE Tradition that Jesus, himself, acknowledged such as the teaching of the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23.
Now, do you know why Jesus said those things to Peter in Matthew 16:18????
Mt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Of course, you’ll probably revert back to your magnificent and brilliant argument: “I believe the books of the bible are inspired, God-breathed, authentic, etc. because the Bible tells me so, and that’s the only authority I go by and that is all I know!”
esau-
Again you argue with yourself!.
Your quotes from these “jewish” sources does not in my intimation allude to the fact that these traditions were ever equal to the Written Word.
Again esau—-(sigh)- what was placed inside the Ark?–and why?.
Do I need tradition to interpret what scripture says?—(Isaiah 8:20)—and if I do , is this not showing a preeminent role of tradition above Scriptures?
Can you explain the Bereans ?—where was this authority they should have consulted with?
Does Scripture have any inherent authority-OUTSIDE what Rome “gives” It?.
And finally esau—Why do you believe in God?.
By the way I have never said any of the sort that you posted in “bold”—-You built that straw man…not me!!!.
Again you argue with yourself!.
Is that why time and again you haven’t answered ANY of my questions or failed to refute my points???
1. Your quotes from these “jewish” sources does not in my intimation allude to the fact that these traditions were ever equal to the Written Word.
Again, just what books do you consider as part of the Written Word????
What makes you think the books in the bible are actually part of Scripture???
2.Do I need tradition to interpret what scripture says?
Gee, tell me then, as I’ve repeated in my post, from the hundreds of other conflicting Protestant interpretations out there, which of these is the correct interpretation??? What of those Protestants who go only by Scripture as their one and only authority but have interpreted them to say that there is no such thing as the Trinity, or those who say that Christ was only a man and not God??? Since they hold the Scriptures as their only Authority, then their interpretation, by your standards, must actually be correct, no???
3. What is your interpretation of the passages in Scripture that I’ve cited with regards to the Church??? How do you know it’s actually THE correct interpretation???
Your arguments are TOO impressive for the likes of me!
By the way I have never said any of the sort that you posted in “bold”—-You built that straw man…not me!!!.
Then answer my questions flat out unless, really, you can’t because you fear your arguments will hold as much water as a bucket full of holes!
Your quotes from these “jewish” sources does not in my intimation allude to the fact that these traditions were ever equal to the Written Word.
I’ve got to say, your comment here as well as the others where you’ve simply made certain assumptions about the Jewish Faith, does in fact speak volumes about your ignorance concerning such things.
Read again the quotes from these distinguished Rabbis:
According to RABBI HAYIM DONIN in the book “TO BE A JEW”, he says:
“We believe that God’s Will was also made manifest in the Oral Tradition, or Oral Torah, which also had its source in Sinai revealed to Moses and, then, orally taught by him to the religious heads of Israel, and the Written Torah itself alludes to such oral instructions.”
THE SAME IS SAID BY RABBI JACOB NEUSNER:
He points out that the Jewish Community from which Christianity sprang has always understood the Torah to be written (he calls that the Sefer Torah) and the Oral Torah (The Torah She-Bal Peh).
Along with the written Torah, the Oral Torah which Moses received at Sinai, was transmitted to Joshua and to Joshua’s elders and to the prophets and to the prophets of the Men of the Great Assembly.”
Again, answer flat out those questions I’ve previously posed to you in my previous posts (i.e., the ones today) and, should they actually hold water, shall more than willingly concede all points to you.
You need a lesson in Comparative Religion.
I don’t think calling people who deny the Trinity “protestant”—but if YOU would like to , that’s up to you.
It’s no wonder you seem to think there are 30.000+ “protestant” denominations….You probably throw New Age in there as well!!- after all who cares about facts, right?.
esau-
Where (pray tell me) do you see these Jewish “scholars” alluding to tradition BEING EQUAL TO THE WRITTEN RECORD?…..
I don’t need for you to “concede” anything!….this is not about winning an argument for the sake of winning!.
Why do you believe in God esau?.
I would submit that the Bereans were of “noble character” because they were open to the gospel, and not simply because they searched the scriptures.
The scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and teachers of the Law who persecuted the early Church had the Sciptures MEMORIZED. They also searched the scriptures, erick, but in their case, they were WRONG in their understanding of them. Their minds were made up, so searching the scriptures did them no good.
The authority of Paul’s preaching did not come from the written scriptures, but from the command of Christ. It was a good thing for the Bereans to search the scriptures… but it was neither here nor there as concerns Paul’s authority. The truth and power of his gospel were there REGARDLESS of how the Bereans (or anyone else) reacted to it.
To assert that Paul’s gospel was to be measured against the Bereans understanding of the OT is just completely inside out and backward.
You are to be commended for searching the scriptures, but the authority of the Church – established at the command of Christ – does not require your approval and is not at diminished by your disapproval.
The connection between Judaism and Christianity is crucial for two reasons:
1) It is in the Bible.
2) The validity of Christianity depends on the validity of the Judaism. If Judaism is a false faith, then so is Christianity.
Not to mention the fact that the forms of Christ’s sacrifice and its effect in saving us from our sins is a Jewish form. If Judaism is immaterial, then so is Christ’s Paschal sacrifice on the cross.
There would be no redemption if there were no Jewish priesthood, etc.
Tim J- “I would submit that the Bereans were of “noble character” because they were open to the gospel, and not simply because they searched the scriptures”.
Lets see if you are right…”These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, IN THAT they recieved the word with all readiness of mind,, AND SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY whether those things were so”.- You are found wanting in your exsegesis, Tim J.
“To assert that Paul’s gospel was to be measured against the Bereans understanding of the OT is just completely inside out and backward”– then explain why were they called “noble”, and also explain why “many of them” became Christians( verse 12). You also seem to fail to notice that these Bereans were all Jews (verse 10).
As to why some use the Scriptures to their destruction…I have no time to go into that, save to say Romans 1,2,3 deal with this.
StubbleSpark-
Wow!– I agree!.
I have not said otherwise.
Erick,
It is YOUR exegesis that is anemic.
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, IN THAT THEY RECEIVED THE WORD WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND, and searched the scriptures daily.”
You just had the wrong bit emphasized, mate.
“As to why some use the Scriptures to their destruction…I have no time to go into that…”
I do. It’s because they approach the scriptures outside the mind of the Church. The one way we can NEVER understand the Scriptures is BY OURSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY. As Luther lamented years after the De-formation, “There are as many churches as there are heads!”.
I’m going to give everyone a couple more chances to get their main points across, and then I’m going to close the combox. This thread keeps popping up like Rasputin, just when it had seemed dead.
I don’t see much chance of anything new being said, and there are other, better posts that deserve attention.
Tim J
Again, it all goes back to Rome doesn’t it?.
Incidentally the word “and” in the verse we both looked at—-what does it mean to you?.
Does it not mean that not only the “recieving” but the “searching” were the reason for their nobleness?—.
Your bringing Luther into the discussion has nothing on me…personally I don’t like him too much…. Now what?.
Like I said before, and now you confirm,…The Word of God has no inherent power nor authority UNTIL Rome judges so…huh, mate?.
Why do you believe in God Tim J?.
Let’s not beat a “dead horse” with a stick anymore….as for me, close it!.
“The Word of God has no inherent power nor authority UNTIL Rome judges so…”
Wrong. The power and authority of the written Scriptures comes from the same source as the power and authority of Tradition and the magisterium. We Catholics accept the Word of God in all its forms, written or not.
You keep seeing the Church as something seperate – over or under the Scriptures – when this is impossible. Do not seperate what God has joined together, erick. There can be no conflict between the Church and the Scriptures, any more than there can be conflict between God the Father and God the Son.
I believe in God not for any particular reason, but for every conceivable reason. I believe mainly because He has enabled me to. I don’t belive in God because the Pope says to… I believe in the Pope because God says to.
“Get it now?”
Not a bit.
“For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” II Peter 1.16-21
The Word of the Lord!
“Your bringing Luther into the discussion has nothing on me”
That’s funny because there was this little thing, you may have heard of it, called the “Protestant Reformation.” You know, the only movement in Christian history that shrank the canon.
Luther used the OT canon decided by the Jews who rejected Christ. That is right, not just non-Christians but non-Christians who openly rejected the gospel as taught by the Apostles themselves and their successors.
So you cannot trace any of your Christian dogma or any of the canon of the Bible back the Catholic Church nor can you be bothered to trace the development of the Bible as far back as 500 years ago.
Then you take the focus off your ignorance by making accusations that we are conveniently revising history.
Even if the accusation of revisionism were true, it pales in scope when compared to willfully ignoring the past.
Face it: you could care less what the Bible is, what the Bible is for, or where it came from. All that matters to you is what you want out of it.
Right now I am watching a TV evangelist preaching that the New Covenant did not officially start until Christ died. Therefore, all teaching that Christ did before He died does not apply to Christians. So the Catholicky statements like “if you love me, keep my commandments,” “he who keeps my commandments loves me,” or “he who endures to the end will be saved” — none of these apply to Christians.
Amazing. He used covenant theology to essentially nullify nine tenths of the gospels. At one point, he even calls the prayer Christ taught His disciples the “So-called Lord’s Prayer” and said it is a useless prayer.
In.
Sane.
Yet undeniably scriptural. “You believe the Bible, don’t you?” he asks.
StubbleSpark: By chance, was it the late Gene Scott (PAX is showing reruns of him)?
Bill: I was wondering the same thing. That guy talks (talked) in tighter (yet continuous) circles than the smallest gear of a spirograph.