Wow, this is a really fascinating dissection of some vexing questions! Thanks to all for staying true to the "mission" of the blog: a civil discussion by earnest "seekers of truth!"
Getting back to Mary's original question about "truth from other sources," I'd like to stimulate some thought by drawing on one of my favorite analogies: the body (Paul liked it a little, also!). What we have come to understand with the tools of modern biology is that virtually every part/organ/cell/organelle/protein etc. is the product of the "true substance", DNA. Your individual makeup (biologically speaking of course) is the product of the utilization of that DNA (your own personal "truth")when the miracle of translation-- the process which allows proteins to be formed-- and replication (making new copies)-- occurs, and occurs over and over again in exactly the same sequence, when it is working correctly. Unfortunately, there are times when it does not work correctly, and the wrong protein can be translated, or the correctly translated protein gets "messed up," say by an environmental toxin, or something like that. The result is that the "fruit" of that translation or synthesis does not "truly" reflect the original "idea" contained within that strand of DNA. Capiche?
Now, suppose that "Scripture" is the Church's DNA. If we presume that the original "DNA" of God's Word was copied correctly, then the "translation" of that Word-- synthesis of "fruit," for example, will be a reflection of the "strand" from which it sprang. The Spirit, in effect, "translates" the DNA of God's Word in the "probiotic soup" of our individual souls, resulting in the "fruit of the Spirit." We can reasonably assume, therefore, that when we manifest the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, we are reflecting an accurate "translation" of our spiritual DNA, which is God's Word.
So, is that the only source of spiritual DNA? What about areas not specifically addressed in our scriptural canon, or those areas which have resulted in controversy over translations or cultural idioms(e.g., gay marriage)? Can, in biological systems, "growth" occur in an organism based on an "external" (think: nonBiblical) source of DNA? Sure-- grafting!
More to follow. . . gotta do some work, but wanted to get your juices flowing! Peace!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting concept. I'd have to think about that some more.
ReplyDeleteOf course, as a Catholic, I'd have to say that Scripture and Tradition, rather than Scripture alone, would be the Church's DNA. We see both as the Word of God - "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit...And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit" (Catechism,#81).
Of course, there is an innate connection between the two. The Catechism, again quoting the bishops at the Second Vatican Council says it best: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal" (Catechism, #80).
Hmmm - Scripture and Tradition - coming together to form one thing and move toward the same goal. Sounds to me like... a double helix!
:)
In Christ,
Dave
I like you, Dave ;)
ReplyDeleteI want to apologize to the group for being so scatter brained. I will try to tame my "random thoughts by Mary," so that we can have a little bit more order to these discussions.
Regarding the "innate connection between the two (scripture and tradition)," I want to share what I've learned this week as I've been studying the book of James. I am perplexed at the emphasis that James places on the idea that "faith without works is dead," (2:26) and "you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24). One may initially think that this is a contradiction to what Paul writes in Romans 3:28 when he states, "for we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law," but this is not the case. Paul is denying the saving power of Mosaic works, performed on the strength of human nature, while James affirms the value of Christian works, performed by the grace and power supplied by Jesus Christ. Paul is saying that we can not be saved by obeying Jewish law. James is discussing the ongoing justification of believers who put their faith into action and strive to live the gospel in practical and charitable ways. These are works of Christian obedience undertaken in response to the grace of Christ. In this context, where Christian living is made possible by the grace of God, works do indeed contribute to our increase in righteousness and justification. James is correcting those who took Paul out of context and minimized the importance of works as a proper and necessary expression of faith in the Christian life. This is why he stresses that faith in Christ entails the obligation to live faithfully in Christ through good works. Jesus said himself "if you love Me you will obey My commandments" (John 14:15), and that we receive eternal life by obeying the Father's commandments (Matt. 19:17). (Wait a minute, didn't Luther say that we are saved by "faith ALONE?" Where did he come up with that?) So, to me, tradition is a framework, a source of leadership, an example, and a structure by which I am able to obey God's commandments and walk out my faith. Faith and works are actually one in the same entity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecontinued...
ReplyDeleteI have been attending a nondenominational church that is adament about "hating religion, loving relationship." This seems to be the trend of the nondenominational church these days. And trust me, I totally bought into this way of thinking about religion and tradition. I absolutely see the emptiness in tradition and religion if one's heart is not in the right place, if works are done for the sake of works alone. Jesus very clearly spoke against this type of religious practice in Matthew 23. But as I've been exposed to the Catholic Church I have come to see and understand the beauty of tradition and religion. I am comforted knowing that saints have gone before me, living radically for God, walking out their faith, sacrificing their reputations and their fleshly desires in order to know God more intimately, to serve Him and to obey Him. I believe God has called me to live radically for Him, not as a luke-warm, comfortable Christian, but as a disciple, as a saint, committing my daily grind to Him, suffering for Him, being obedient to Him regardless of the cost. It is as if I have been called to scale a mountain to God (Mt. Everest style-- the type that calls for "hinds feet on high places"), but until recently I felt like I was going to have to do it alone (there was nobody in my immediate vicinity that was on the same page) and without a guide (the "who can I trust/who has authority" question...all I had was my Bible). But then God introduced me to the Catholic Church, and I realized that there have been thousands that have scaled this mountain before me, and that are scaling it right now, all around the world, and even in my own town. I realized that I don't have to "find the right (nondenominational) church" (which are few and far between) in order to be discpled properly, but that "the right church" exists in every city that I go to. The doctrines are the same wherever I go; the teaching is always solid because it has been tried and tested for thousands of years, founded by the apostles themselves; the the saints have gone before me, leaving me with their insights (the councils and sources "other than the Bible") and suggestions as to how to scale this mountain successfully (the traditions). The traditions, to me, are actually a beautiful framework of guidance in my walk of faith.
I hope you all are able to follow my patterns of thought. The point is...faith without works is dead, and the traditions of the Church are a tool by which I am empowered to walk out my faith.
I "like the way you're thinking..." Its very interesting to pause on reflect on, as those (Mary and I in particular) raised in the Protestant "tradition," and to openly and honestly evaluate, our relationship to God through Christ, Scripture and Tradition as it has been taught since the birth of the Church. It is important to realize that the emphasis of a body of work-- Augustine's, Luther's, Calvin's, etc.-- arose out of a historical context which it is difficult for us to fully appreciate. Having listened to some of Scott Hahn's teaching, I agree with him that it is easy to fall into "comfort zones" within our own denominational "tradition" and build our theological walls out of bricks handed to us only by those with the same/similar philosophies, resulting in profound misunderstandings about other traditions, be they Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise. Part of a dynamic spiritual growth which I hope (and pray!) is happening today is the breaking down of these walls across denominational/traditional lines: the ecumenical movement. Yet even this attempt to unite believers of all denominations comes under attack!
ReplyDeleteOne of the fascinating, and yet at times disconcerting results, is the way different groups will interpret a Scripture to support their position either for or against such activity! An example is Romans 16:17: " I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned."
That being said, I return to my diatribe on "grafting:" it is possible to take a branch from one fruit tree, graft it onto a different fruit tree, and that branch begin to produce fruit! How is this possible? Because the similarity of the DNA-- and the products of its translation (proteins, cells, and ultimately "fruit") are similar enough to the original vine that the original "embraces" and "nourishes" the graft! So, maybe you could view the Protestant denominations that "grow and produce fruit" being grafted onto the universal Church and being "accepted" because of their common DNA! Of course, one important product from both the original and the graft is that they "produce fruit, and fruit that remains" (John 15:16)!
"Hating religion, loving relationship" magnifies the free grace of God in His salvation of condemned sinners through Jesus Christ. This justification is done by the Holy Spirit opening up the sinner's heart and granting faith (salvation is ALL of GOD, see John 1:12-13). And here again we come back to the essential question - how is a man justified before God?
ReplyDeleteMary, you wrote: "In this context, where Christian living is made possible by the grace of God, works do indeed contribute to our increase in righteousness and justification." To be fair, your previous sentence is correct. We will do good works out of the abundance of the love Christ has shown to us. When defining righteousness and justification, we have to view them from God's perspective. Do you think that God the Father would accept anything in addition to the murder of His own Son to satisfy the wrath that you deserve for your transgression if you were without Christ?
He poured out His wrath on His own dear Son and his blood atones for our sins. In His blood the believer is justified before God because God sees the blood of the sacrifice (sound familiar?) and His righteousness is credited to us. Therefore, Christ alone is our righteousness and justification (Galatians 2:11-16).
As says the old hymn, Rock of Ages: "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to the Cross I cling." That is so comforting. My place before God is secured in the living Word, Christ Jesus, and not in Christ plus tradition.
Mary,
ReplyDeleteWow! In two short posts, you have so succinctly and so eloquently expressed the beauty of the Catholic faith. Thank you for sharing this. Far from being "random thoughts by Mary," I am deeply moved by the profundity of your insight. To be fair, there are many Catholics who don't "get it" as well as you do; there are too many Catholics who are lukewarm in their faith, and who aren't scaling that mountain. But glory to God, there are many who are serious about their walk with Christ, and there is a growing movement of the Spirit to reform and renew the Church.
Eudaimon, I am intrigued by your analogy of grafting. But I don't see the Protestant churches as being grafted onto the universal (i.e. catholic) Church. Rather, I see them as branches that are still connected to the main vine, but weakened in some respects. The "sap" of the Spirit still flows to them, and reaches them, producing fruit (praise God). But these branches are wounded and incapable of producing the fullness of the harvest. Some, such as many of the liberal/mainline Protestant churches, are in dire condition and are nearly barren. (I hope I am not too harsh, but as a former Episcopalian I grieve over the growing apostasy of that denomination).
George Weigel, in his book "The Truth of Catholicism," expressed the concept clearly (that Dave is speaking of):
ReplyDelete"The one Church of Christ 'subsists' in the Catholic Church; that is, the Catholic Church understands itself to be the fullest, most rightly ordered expression in history of the Church of Christ, which transcends history. The one Church of Christ is not completely identical with the Catholic Church: it does not 'stop' at the boundaries of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that there are 'many elements of sanctification and of truth' in Christian communities that lie outside Catholicism's visible borders...Catholics have hundreds of millions of brothers and sisters in Christ who live their Christian lives outside the formal structure of the Catholic Church. Those brothers and sisters in Christ are, in some sense, in communion with the Catholic Church. For all the baptized, from the Catholic point of view, are part of the Catholic Church, as Catholics are part of them (the anology is to the members of a body, not the members of a club). Whether other Christians think of Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, Catholics have no choice but to think of others Christians that way. The Catholic Church has a unique position in world Christianity: it is the only Christian communion whose self-understanding demands that it be in edumenical conversation with everybody else, without exception."
Alex, in your last post you asked "How is a man justified before God?" This is a very significant question, not easily answered in this type of format. But the short answer, to which I suspect we would both agree, is "by grace alone."
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church teaches that "our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life" (Catechism, #1996).
In recent years, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a Joint Statement on Justification, addressing many of the issues that divided the Church at the time of the Reformation. The key passage in the statement says, "Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."
Where the Catholic Church differs from the Protestant churches is over the concept of "sola fide." As Mary has already demonstrated, the only passage of Scripture that refers to "faith alone" is James 2:24. And as she also noted (and noted by such scholars as N.T. Wright), the "works of the Law" that St Paul addressed were specifically the requirements of the Mosaic Law, and not the moral Law. And it is not James only who points out the necessity of works; St. Paul himself says to the Galatians "For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love" (5:5-6).
So what we are talking about here now is whether, through justification, righteousness is imputed, imparted or infused to us? Both faith and works are gifts from God and I don't believe that striving to obtain either one of them is the answer since neither of these are something that I can produce myself but they must come from the Holy Spirit. Justification is historically a legal term not refering to any kind of moral transaction.
ReplyDeleteSaying that righteousness is imputed to us as through faith working itself through love is legally imputing Christ's righteousness and obedience to us since we as sinners can never be obedient enough to earn righteousness (just as Alex was explaining above about the blood of Christ). And this is the focus of Romans 3:21-4:25.
The doctrine of infused righteousness posits that the righteousness of Christ is instilled in the believer and maintained by good works, the latter becoming the inherent righteousness of the believer and he is justified by what he does with it. In my opinion, seeing justification as a process of infused righteousness is asserting that the righteousness of Christ is not enough, which is just absurd.
I positively agree that we are to live our lives to serve and honor God, not just to sit around. But it is living in this way not because we are justified by our works, but because Christ has already saved us from our dead works, so that our lives verify God's grace by the way we live and serve the living God (Hebrews 9:14).
I hope I have clearly communicated the difference here. So which one do you believe is right -- imputed righteousness or infused? I, for one, think it is imputed.
Of course, as was expected and perfectly natural we are veering off into many different topics which are equally enjoyable. However, I think there is still more to discuss before we formally move on to other topics such as imputation vs infusion which has to do with Salvation. I do agree with Alex that the next topic should be Salvation, and look forward to delving into that question a bit. However, I have yet to weigh in, regrettably, on the topic which I believe is THE foundational issue at hand, Authority. It is the root, the crux, as well as the very keystone to Catholic and Protestant thought, and should be given its due. Additionally, I have yet to see any Protestant tackle the HUGE hole of Scripture Alone which I will address once more. Keep in mind that redirecting the argument isn't enough to refute the argument. So here goes... I will post in two parts.
ReplyDeletePart I: Will the real "Authority" please stand up?
ReplyDeleteWe've talked a little bit about what the Ancient Church (Catholic and Orthodox Churches, respectively) teaches on authority. In summary, the Ancient Church has a comprehensive, three-fold approach. 1) Scripture 2) Tradition 3) Magisterium. Protestants rely on Scripture Alone. We've heard the Protestant side argue against the Church's very reasonable and sound three-fold approach, but how does one really defend the argument that a singular Authority in a text which can be subjectively interpreted by anyone seriously stand up to having that same authority be a part of a comprehensive approach? Would any other document, such as the U.S. Constitution, for example, make sense on its own without case precedent, the Declaration, other documents and writings of the Founding Fathers, history of the time period, and of course, a Supreme Court to properly interpret it? I don't know. It seems a bit of a no-brainer to me if I were an atheist lawyer putting the Catholic and Protestant Traditions side-by-side on trial in order determine which one makes more sense, or at least, which one is more credible. However, this is hypothetical, let's get to part one of the real debate.
First, do Protestants truly rely on "Scripture Alone" as their sole authority? When I read Rebecca's appeals to the Westminster Confession, I think to myself, "Tradition". When I see Rebecca appeal to Calvin, I think to myself, hmmm... an astute, and authoritative theologian, maybe akin to a "magistrate" in judging what doctrines are correct? When I see Alex list a set of "negotiables" and "non-negotiables" I think several things, but what primarily comes to mind is, "says who?". Alex, your two lists are a very subjective picking from several different theological ideas and "authorities", if you will, some of which are not necessarily "scriptural". One in particular is even Catholic in it's origin. The doctrine of the Trinity was handed down to us from a Church Council (Nicea 325 A.D.) The word Trinity was first coined by Tertullian, an early Church Father (c. 155-230). That doctrine isn't at all "scriptural" in the literal sense bc we know that there isn't a definition of the Trinity, nor does the word actually appear in Scripture. It was formulated out of a need to address heresies forming out of differing views on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Did the early Church have a Bible at this point? No, that didn't occur until later. Did they have uncanonized Scriptures? Yes, but frankly, those Scriptures Alone were not sufficient in and of themselves to clearly define the relationship be the Three Persons. The mystery of this idea had to be defined lest the Early Church fall into disunity and heresy. So, how did they decide which view of the relationship bt Father, son, and HS was correct? It surely was not Scripture Alone, it was in fact, the Catholic three-fold approach, 1) existing uncanonized Scriptures 2) Tradition in the form of what had been passed down by the Apostles 3) the Magisterium meeting at the Council of Nicea to formally decide. Had Scripture Alone been the only authority it could be argued that we may never had settled on many of the Christian doctrines that many Protestants so often take for granted to include the Trinity. (cont. next post)
(continued from Part I: Will the real "Authority" please stand up?)...
ReplyDeleteMy first point is this- Protestants must appeal to some authority other than Scripture Alone, and in fact they do just that each time they appeal to most of our "non-negotiable" Christian doctrines. The very book that Protestants so ardently defend as their "sole authority", the Bible, was given to them by the Authority of the Catholic Church at the Council of Laodicea (363 AD), and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) .
Rebecca said it best,
"I am a firm believer in the need for catechisms and order in worship for many reasons, one of which is to provide guidance and accountability for any group of believers to remain in the truth and prevent heretical teachings and practices."
Yes!!... which answers Rebecca's following question:
"So my question is, why would we need any other authority besides the Scriptures that have been canonized?"
So, unless I am missing something here, it seems very, very obvious that everyone appeals to authority other than Scripture. Yes, or No? Please explain if I am way off. It is a fact that much of what Protestants believe—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Protestant Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy on without even realizing it. This should be a little bit alarming if one is Protestant, but even more alarming is my next point, or question really...
Part II: "Scrupulous Scripture: a Literal approach for Literalists"
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Bible say that it is itself the only authority? In other words, is "Scripture Alone" scriptural? This issue was addressed briefly by Dave, but seemed to be overlooked. This is HUGE. Is it not? I mean, if my authority rested on me taking Luther's word for it in his cry, "Sola Scriptura!", but this is itself not Scriptural then how can one with any intellectual integrity simply ignore that?
A dear staunch, and bright Reformed Evangelical Protestant friend of mine (who incidentally came into Communion with the Catholic Church this past Easter) wrote me this explanation back in 2006 to explain her view back then which is generally most Protestants' answer:
"If we look at scripture, it says “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” II Tim 3.16. There is no mention of scripture AND ancient tradition here. So what is our FINAL source of how to follow Jesus and obey God? I would say scripture. How can tradition supersede this? I don’t see that it can. Many reforms and “back to the bible” movements struggle with deciding how much of what the apostolic church practiced was intended to be part of the permanent pattern that churches of all ages should follow. I think that is the crux of the issue for you. Maybe I am not going where you asked me, but that is my .02."
Again, Dave touched on this a bit, but I think it has not been addressed properly by the Protestant guys and gals on here. I am going to elaborate a bit on this passage as well.
Many will say that II Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But the verse shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" or in your translation, “useful” (Greek: ophelimos) that is, "helpful". Many things can be profitable/useful for moving one toward a goal, without being "sufficient" in getting one to the goal. The passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient” which is what Protestants, including myself not too long ago, actually mean when referring to this verse. In II Timothy 3:16–17 Paul is laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Shall we take the whole text in context with its surrounding text? Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" KJV (II Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this- is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry. If we use the rule of "Scripture Alone" we will find that nowhere does the Bible say, "Scripture alone is sufficient," and nowhere does the Bible imply it. The doctrine of Scripture Alone is in fact, unbiblical. Logically, this makes it quite illogical. (cont. next post)
Part III: "WDJD or What Did Jesus Do?"
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I say again, "The doctrine of Scripture Alone is unbiblical." *SIREN* *ALARM*... I say again, "The doctrine of Scripture Alone is unbiblical."
BTW, I'm making what's called a FRAGO in military circles. Three parts instead of two. Bear with me.
So, where does Scripture tell us that “God’s Word” can and must be only in written form, typed on paper or parchment? Jesus never promised us an authoritative book, nor did his apostles. Wouldn't some sort of authority be something pretty important for Jesus to address back in the day? Well, Jesus’ word was orally transmitted to the apostles, and we know from the Old Covenant that oral tradition was established side by side with the Torah. He passed his teachings on to the Twelve in the form of oral tradition. He also promised that when the Holy Spirit came, he would teach them all things and bring to their memory “all that I said to you.” Since He spent three years with them we know for a fact that the content of the Gospels was only a small fraction of what Jesus taught them. Right or Wrong? And let us not forget the 40 days after the Resurrection that Jesus spent with the apostles instructing them through the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2-3) giving them instruction concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church. The early Church depended upon the apostolic tradition, not the Scriptures, and certainly not the “Scriptures alone”, heck at this point the New Testament didn't even exist. So, did Jesus ever promise to give us an authoritative book? No. Did the Apostles? No. Did Jesus promise and establish an authoritative Church? Why Yes. Is this Scriptural? Yes. Jesus instituted a Church that would pass on the truth, always carefully preserving the tradition entrusted to her. (Matt. 16:18-19 and Matt. 18:15-20) Even if you don't think Peter was the first leader of the Church, one cannot ignore that Jesus didn't institute Scriptures, but a Church as an authority who would in turn give us the Scriptures through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul himself referred to the Church, not the Bible, as the “pillar and bulwark” of the truth. (I Tim. 3:15). This is a very important verse to look at. It is often overlooked. Where was the truth of Christ first deposited? In a book? No, it was delivered from Christ to the apostles, and then the apostles deposited the truth into the Church before the Bible as we know it, ever even existed. If the apostles meant to say “Sola Scriptura” or anything remotely like it, why don’t we see any evidence of this? Why did Jesus not say something of a hint at this? Why did the Holy Sprit wait almost four centuries before finally collecting and forming the apostolic writings into a collection called the New Testament? I mean, that’s an awful long time for something so important. What were they doing all that time without a Bible? The early Church seemed to be in no hurry, for the truth was not to be deposited exclusively into a book, as Sola Scriptura teaches. If so, why didn’t the apostles collect all the inspired writings and authoritatively announce to all Christians that “this is now the sole rule of faith for your individual interpretations”? Why didn’t the Early Fathers like Ignatius, Iraeneus, Augustine, or even later ones like Aquinas ever proclaim Sola Scriptura? Those are pretty smart guys I just named, and not once did it ever cross their mind that the Scriptures were to be the sole authority. (cont. next post)
(continued from Part III: "WDJD or What Did Jesus Do?")...
ReplyDeleteThe apostles who were spoken of as the foundation of the Church, fulfilled their office from Rome to India. They left their writings and their oral traditions and their practices. Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions he gave them whether in spoken word or epistle. He commended those in Corinth for holding to the traditions he had left them. (2 Thess. 2:15, I Cor. 11:2) The apostles spent months and years in various locales relaying the truth and teaching the people. They taught them how to live, how to start a local "ecclesia" and how to function within it. Then, before they left for another mission they chose and ordained bishops to succeed them and guide that church in that diocese. The new church was left with apostolic tradition and apostolic succession as the basis for their faith and the means of transmission to the next generation. The apostolic tradition came long before the New Testament Canon. So, did the NT give birth to the Church or did the Church give birth to the NT? The NT is a product of the Church. The NT is the collected and inspired writings of the apostles and their immediate followers. It is not, however, the sum total of all their teachings and traditions.
Had you or I been alive at the time of the Resurrection, chances are we would have never seen or heard of the Gospel of John, his epistles, or Revelation unless we lived to be eighty or ninety which was rare at that time. Us first century Christians would have been w/o the NT but we would not have been without the apostolic tradition, preserved by the Church and passed on to the next generation. Traditions like the way the Eucharist was done for example (yes, they believed in the “heresy” of transubstantiation way back then... and they practiced it even believing that the Bread and Wine are the actual Body and Blodd of Our Lord and Savior), but that is for a whole nother topic of discussion which we aren’t anywhere close to yet... :) Yet, it does beg the question- if the Apostles believed it, and their own disciples believed it who took their place, and then this was passed down to the next generation... then why does the entire Church, to include Protestants, not receive Communion as such? If it was good for the earliest Christians to include the Apostles themselves then why is it not good for us now? But I digress...
Ok, I'm finished with this post now. Yay!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDang Jake (a.k.a. Ricky), you pretty much covered all the bases here. I was ready to post my input, but after reading this it just seems so futile. Well, I'm gonna offer my two cents anyways. Here's what I wrote before I read Jake's post (a weak argument in comparison, but hopefully it will help in some way):
ReplyDeleteRegarding the issue of authority...
Recall what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:15-19
"15 He said to them, But who do you [yourselves] say that I am?
16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Then Jesus answered him, Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].
19 I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.
This is huge, people! Do you realize the implications of Jesus' words here?!!
Catholics have traditionally claimed St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and thus the first pope. Formally, there were no papal offices in the first centuries of the Church (f.y.i. the word "catholic" was first used by Ignatius of Antioch around the year 110 AD - something to consider if you don't believe the the original Church (the one that canonized the Bible in 363 AD!) was actually the Catholic Church). Originally, "apostolic" described the early communities that were formed during the lifetime of the apostles. Only one of the six of these first communities was in the West - Rome. The other five - Antioch, Philipi, Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica - were in the East. These large communities were geographical centers for groups of smaller communities. Official teaching depended on what the larger communities, representing the smaller ones, agreed on. This process develped as a way of securing the teaching of Jesus, keeping it separate from the personal revelations that were popular in communities - which had a more charismatic character. The early Church communities mentioned here operated by the principle of agreement. Sounds like the Magesterium, huh? It is a fact that from the beginning the Church has been built on the leadership of an authority other than scripture alone - that authority being the leaders of the Church. If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), why would He not continue to build His Church in this same manner?
(notes taken from "Understandig Catholicism" by Bob O'Gorman, Ph.D. and Mary Faulkner, M.A.)
Jake, dude... tell us what you really think!
ReplyDelete;)
Seriously, though, I think you lay out a well-reasoned answer. If I may summarize and add a couple of observations:
1. Protestants, while claiming to adhere to Scripture Alone, actually interpret it through a lens of their own tradition(s), of which they tend to be unaware. Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans are at least conscious of the traditions through which they interpret Scripture, while most modern evangelical "post-denominational" Protestants are not (even though their tradition is of very recent origin).
2. Nowhere does Scripture claim to be the sole or ultimate authority for life and decision-making within the Church. 2 Tim 3:16 cannot be used as a proof-text to prove Sola Scriptura.
3. To carry on His continuing work, ministry, and presence in the world, Jesus did not leave a book or even command that a book be written. Rather, He established a Church to be the sacrament of His continued presence in the world, and He sent the Holy Spirit upon the Church to empower it for mission and ministry. That Church carried the Gospel to the world in obedience to the Great Commission prior to the writing of the New Testament, and the canon of Scripture was only gradually recognized and ratified by the Church.
I would add a final comment - beginning with the issue of the admission of Gentile converts (discussed in the book of Acts), the early Church was confronted with many crises and heresies (Docetism, Gnosticism in all its forms, Arianism, etc). In battling all these errors, the Church did not turn to Scripture Alone to resolve them. The Church did appeal to Scripture - but so did the heretics. So in addition to Scripture, the Church turned to Tradition as well in the defense of the Faith. The bishops of the Church, in union with the Bishop of Rome, exercised their teaching authority (the Magisterium) and upheld the authority of both Scripture and Tradition in the answering the heretics.
For 1500 years, this is how authority was exercised in the Church. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium were balanced and joined together like a three-legged stool. Only with the Reformation did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura arise, replacing the apostolic Tradition with the traditions of Luther and Calvin, and replacing the magisterium of the Fathers, Councils, and bishops with the magisterium of the various and conflicting Protestant Confessions.
Excellent, excellent, cogent thoughts and premises, my peeps. . . I think you make an excellent case for the fallibility of "sola scriptura," Jake! I would like to add that, as least from a personal perspective, the original concept of "sola scriptura" is very likely layered with centuries of our own Protestant teachings, and the Catholic responses. It would be interesting to go back to Luther's original writings-- if I could read German-- and determine if, at the time of the 95 Theses, he could have foreseen the consequences. I have a teaching series from an academic perspective that suggests that Luther was actually quite taken aback by the ferocity of attacks against him when he presented the theses; in fact, they were supposedly originally "bulletin board" material for a class he was involved with in a CATHOLIC university, and were put up as fodder for academic discussion! This professor goes on to say that Luther's original intent was to suggest some reforms for excesses in the Church, not to create a new church; it was his followers who took the ball and ran with it, so to speak! Nevertheless, the "damage" is done, it seems. . .
ReplyDeleteIsn't the Internet amazing?? I Googled "sola scriptura" yesterday, and discovered a plethora of discussions, many of which seem to contain confabulations which can boggle the mind! Tell me, my Catholic brothers, is is true that (as one or more of these sites intimate) you take DELIBERATE steps to prevent "ordinary" Christians from reading the Bible for themselves? That the Church burned vernacular Bibles to prevent the laity from accessing them??
I have a humble suspicion (close to a conviction) that Satan laughs at all the ways man finds to perpetuate and magnify divisions within the body of Christ. If Tradition and the Magisterium "agree" with Scripture, there would seem to be no argument; if, after many years and many tears, it becomes manifest that an element of Tradition "contradicts" Holy Scripture, one must decide which is the "greater" foundation of the Church. But consensus on that decision must arise from some voice of "authority." For Catholics, I would assume that to be the Magisterium; for Protestants, it may be their local minister, their "Convention," or their own personal interpretation.
I wonder if the American emphasis on "rugged individualism" and the "rights" of the people effectuates the Protestant notion that makes Papal authority a suspect notion. It brings to mind my musings on DNA in the body. Every cell in your body contains the same DNA! Then, why is a muscle cell different from a fat cell, which is different from a bone cell, etc. etc.? We don't have all the answers, but we know that it is the different translations of that DNA that ultimately manifests the outcome of a particular cell, gathering with others to form organs, etc. Why does any particular translation occur? It appears to be related to a large degree to the ENVIRONMENT (immediate, not global!) Perhaps we, in the body of Christ, all implanted with the same spiritual DNA (when we are "born again"), manifest our role in the body of Christ by a particular translation of that DNA, and that based largely (or, at least partially) on our environment!
That being said, it is fascinating that we can now "manipulate" the environment of, say, a stem cell and control/change the outcome of that cell! Chew on that for a while and I'll pick up this line of reasoning in a later post...
Peace to all! This is good stuff!!
Eudaimon, with regard to Luther, I believe his initial reaction to the "selling of indulgences" was largely justified. However, in the resulting dispute with Church authorities, I suspect that he may have gotten "bowed up" as they say, and took an increasingly radical turn. The division caused by the Reformation was and is a real tragedy, and Luther was not alone to blame; the Church acknowledges formally acknowledges our share in that blame.
ReplyDeleteNow, with regard to Scripture, I do not want to leave you with the wrong impression. Often, in these discussions (debates?), evangelical Protestants hear us so emphasize Tradition that it seems we are denigrating Scripture. To the evangelical ear, it may sound like we are arguing for the supremacy of Tradition over Scripture. This is not the case.
First, as I've said before, the Catholic Church has a very "high" view of Scripture. Rather than treating it as a record of what the ancient Jews and Christians believed (the modernist approach taken by liberal Protestants), the Catholic Church maintains that it is the very Word of God in written form, divinely inspired. We believe that God is the ultimate author of Scripture, and that it teaches "firmly, faithfully, and without error" the truth that God revealed for our salvation.
(More in the next post...)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteSecond, this regard for Scripture is seen in how we experience it in the Church's worship. Far from keeping the Scriptures away from people, the Church proclaims the Scriptures at every Mass celebrated in every land on every day. On Sundays, we have three readings from Scripture: an Old Testament reading, a reading from one of the Epistles, and finally the Gospel reading, proclaimed with great solemnity as the congregation stands to hear the words of Our Lord. On weekdays, there is usually only two readings: an Old Testament reading, and the Gospel. Furthermore, these readings are arranged over a three year period, so that the average faithful Catholic is exposed to a significant portion of the Bible year-by-year. I can personally attest that I have heard more of the Scriptures read and proclaimed and expounded upon in the Catholic Church than I ever did in the charismatic/pentecostal churches in which I was raised.
Moreover, the Scriptures themselves are treated with great respect: the Book of the Gospels is carried in procession at the beginning of Mass, signifying the entry of Christ the Word among His people. The people respond to the readings of Scripture with words and gestures that signify thanksgiving and acceptance of this Word. The priest, after reading the Gospel, kisses the Gospel book. These are no mere empty rituals: "the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body [i.e., the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist]" (Catechism, #103).
Finally, while most Catholics get their primary exposure to Scripture through the Liturgy of the Word at Mass on Sundays, the Church has frequently exhorted the faithful to read the Bible for themselves. The practice of "lectio divina" (Sacred Reading) has been a spiritual practice since the earliest times. However, it is only in modern times that literacy rates and the availability of printed Bibles have allowed Catholics easy access to the Scriptures. Rather than discouraging personal Bible reading (a charge frequently leveled against us), the Church maintains that "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful" (Catechism, #131). In the past, Catholic Bibles were often printed with an indulgence attached for the devout reading of Scriptures, for at least 15 minutes a day. (We can talk about indulgences later - the point is that the Church felt that reading Scripture was so spiritually beneficial that an indulgence was granted - and it was even free!). In many parishes today, small group faith-sharing Bible studies are very popular. (A particularly good program in which I have participated is the Little Rock Scripture Study program, which originated in Little Rock AR). What makes Catholic Bible study groups somewhat different from Protestant ones, though, is how we seek to read Scripture with the Church, in fidelity to Tradition and the Magisterium, rather than apart from the Church.
Pax et Caritas!
Dave
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteEphesians 5:15-16 and Colossians 4:5 instruct believers to walk wisely and redeem the time. I have seen that while I probably could hang out with you guys and debate the merits of being Catholic or being Protestant, the time invested would far outweigh time that could be spent seeking Jesus. Besides, all of the intellectual debate in the world cannot change a heart. Only the Holy Spirit can do that :)
I will go down swinging though.
Sola Sciptura declares the Bible is the authority for the church local and universal because it is breathed out by God, who has given all authority to Jesus Christ, the head of the Church. In the days of the church before the NT canon, God still breathed out his word through the apostles and Jesus was still the head of church local and universal. Because direct authoritative revelation about God no longer is revealed to the church like it was then, we know how to be reconciled to God through the gospel outside of the Scriptures? I have faith that the Bible we have is the one he wanted. Millions have been saved through the plan of redemption contained in it. Thus, Sola Scriptura.
The Bible is to be used to explain of making lost sinners wise to salvation. Having faith in the Bible, of course, does not save, only faith applied by the Holy Spirit (y'all don't believe in that either, I know). Of course there are the church fathers and reformers who write lots of truth. But it's not infallible truth. That is only found in the Word of God, which in October 2009 is the Bible. What form the word is in has changed as God has deemed fit, but His Word will stand forever. The rest will not.
I said on my blog that I would respond to Acts 2:38. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
ReplyDeletePeter was addressing Jews. These were people who rejected the Messiah and were asking Peter, after being "cut to the heart", what they should do. Then Peter speaks this verse. The commands are:
1. Repent. Turn away from your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The sin the Jewish people gathered to hear this sermon felt convicted of was the crucifixion of Jesus.
2. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. These are God's chosen people, the Jews, whom Peter is speaking to. In verse 37, they ask what they have to do in response to the accusation of their guilt as God's people who killed God's only Son.
This is different than Acts 16:30 where the gentile Jailer asks, "What must I do to be saved?" So the repentance is still a turning from sin, but the baptism in Jesus (the Messiah's) name is the sign that these Jews are part of the new covenant and not the old and then, they are graciously filled with the Spirit.
And, since I interpret Scripture with Scripture, you'll find that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized (Acts 10:34-48). So much for baptismal regeneration :)
You guys have fun. I'll be praying for y'all.
Interesting... totustuus, it seems one difference between the Protestant and Catholic utilization of Scripture is in the perception of its assimilation... mere "reading", whether within a service (Mass), Bible study group, or individually, does not seemingly assure its application in the life of the believer, but neither does it imply that one methodology is superior to another... it seems the heart of the individual believer is more important than the method. I'm certainly not able to say that one is more superior than the other!
ReplyDeleteAlex,
Would we be more comfortable in 21st century America if Luther had declared "Prima Scriptura"? I can't help but think that our sociocultural milieu impacts our interpretation of God's message. . . I am a "prisoner" of my language, my culture, my education, etc. -- but I have to think that he anticipated such influences, and knows that the foundation (belief in Him, his goodness, grace, etc.) will sustain us through all of the different kinds of "houses" we build upon it. . . the question that persists is, how do we use that house to accomplish His purposes in the world??
I guess I should have been more clear from the beginning that what disturbs me about the Catholic Tradition is the claim that it is infallible. I still do not see a difference between infallible and impeccable as they are synonyms to me (as hotly debated with Ricky over this week) And as Alex said, I know I am not going to win this argument with Catholic believers who do believe that the Roman Catholic Church could be nothing less than infallible. I know Ricky strongly assures that the issue of authority is the most important one and I agree that all of the other discrepancies follow out of that. At the same time, I think we have exhausted the topic and I'm more interested in discussing the specific doctrine of the Church that I have been taught all of my life to be erroneous, or I guess I could say fallible :)
ReplyDeleteRebecca, I would like to address your concern over the infallibility of the Church. But I want to make sure we're on the same page. Can you tell me what you think we mean when we (Catholics) say that the Church is infallible? Can you also tell me why you think infallibility and impeccability are synonomous? I look forward to your reply, when you have time!
ReplyDeleteThe first explanation of the infallibility of the Church that I found was from Peter Kreeft in Catholic Christianity when he wrote, "Vatican Council I defined what Catholics had always believed: that the pope, like the ecumenical (worldwide) councils, is infallible (preserved by God from error) when defining doctrine or morality for the whole Church" (p. 101).
ReplyDeleteWhen I look in dictionaries and other reference sources (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu), infallibility is defined as "the quality of NEVER making an error." From the same sources, impeccability means "the quality of BEING without error or fault". Based on those definitions, I don't see how anything could be infallible (incapable of containing error) but not impeccable (without error). To me those seemsw like synonyms.
To say that something is capable of containing an error (less than infallible) does not indication that it does in fact contain errors. It could be without error even it if is capable of errors. (Like in statistical tests where an acceptable margin of error must be declared for the results.) Therefore, I am not claiming the Church is "fallible" just because I disagree with the claim of infallibility.
Rebecca, I think I understand your point regarding the definintions of infallibility and impeccability. When I originally introduced those terms in our discussion, I meant impeccability in the sense of moral rectitude or sinlessness. The Church does not make the claim that she is sinless, at least not with regard to the Church Militant (the Church Triumphant, of course, is another matter!). So, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I was making the point that the Catholic Church is not sinless, but merely infallible. I apologize if my words caused any confusion. Based on prior conversations with some Protestants, I know that many mistakenly believe that the Church claims to be sinless or perfect because it claims to be infallible. This, however, is not the case.
ReplyDeleteThe Glossary at the back of the Catechism (2nd Edition) defines infallibility as: "The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful. This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals."
The topic, of course, is controversial. It would be difficult to explain it in a blog post or two. It is discussed in detail in the Catechism in paragraphs 888-891. The key point to consider is that we believe infallibility is a gift from God, to preserve the Church from error in essential matters of faith and morals. It is exercised when definitive judgments are made by the Church, most often when key matters of the faith have been defined by ecumenical councils, or when the Church has universally taught a doctrine throughout its history. Without this doctrine, the doctrinal issues decided by the Church throughout its history would still be open questions. Of course, in some churches that do not accept the infallibility of the Church, or even the binding nature of the Church's decisions, these questions are still open for debate. On the basis of the Church's infallibility, I don't have to question whether the Nicene Creed is correct in its Trinitarianism or its Christology, or whether Christ is fully God and fully human, or whether the Old Testament should be included in the canon of Scripture and the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalen shouldn't. These are all topics that were "open questions" at some point in the Church's history, and I don't have to second-guess the Church's decisions on these matters.
As far as the ecumenical councils are concerned. Let's look at some specific examples. From the Council of Trent, Seventh Session Canon IV "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; -though all (the sacraments) are not in deed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema." In my understand, anathema is a curse. This is not just an excommunication in these and other statements of the Council of Trent. Does the Catholic Church still uphold this curse? And if so, how can there be any type of agreement with the Lutheran church on the doctrine of justification if this anathema is infallible?
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteSorry that you are having such a difficult time critically thinking through all this stuff. It is certainly no small matter, especially when the mere possibility of one's belief system would, in fact, be turned upside down if some of the things we are discussing are indeed true. No one, certainly, wants to keep you from "seeking Jesus" on this "Peto Verum" (Seekers of Truth) blog. Should you find anywhere in the Bible where its says "Scripture Alone" or "Faith Alone" keep us posted.
As for your Sola Scriptura explanation, RC Sproul does a great job of explaining the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura if you need a reference in the future. Any of his books will do. Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is also a great source.
A dear friend of mine recently said, and I paraphrase, "If it's true. It doesn't matter what I think or how I feel. I have to believe what is true even when I don't want to."
It takes a great depth of character, intellectual integrity, humility, and courage to think objectively about things that threaten our currently held convictions which we have worked so diligently to attain, understand, and incorporate into our view of God, the world, and how we fit into that picture as Christians. Once we have latched onto that with the vice-grip of our combined will, emotion, and heart; anything that even has the slightest possibility of undermining those convictions is a threat. Our natural reaction is then to defend rather than to seek. This is true even more so if we are "comfortable" with where we are in our relationship with God. I mean why consider other stuff if "I'm good where I am", right?
It is difficult to admit when one is wrong. In many cases, it is a hundred times more difficult to be able to admit the mere possibility of one being wrong. Only from this point can one truly have intellectual discussion. If one can never even acknowledge the mere possibility of another idea being correct along with its implications, then one can never really have a true objective discussion. I would even go so far to say one can never grow as a person like that, and that these types of discussions are more akin to child's play.
Good luck, and I hope to hear from you again when you get some more time.
Becca V-
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, personally, I would love to move on to another topic such as Salvation, for example. However, the Protestant side of this discussion has not given anything close to as an in-depth of an answer on "Sola Scirptura" as it seems that we are giving on a myriad of other off-topic issues on Catholic teaching.
It seems that the very simple question of where in the Bible does it say that the Scriptures "Alone" are to be the sole authority of believers is being avoided. We have already shown that the verse in Timothy does not suffice. We have also pointed out that by appealing to authorities other than the Bible such as the Westminster Confession, or Calvin's Institutes, Protestants merely reinforce the argument that Scripture Alone isn't sufficient. We have also pointed out various other gaping holes in the idea of Scripture Alone as the only authority. I could go on and on.
While I want you to continue to pick apart Catholic teaching so that we can do our very best to explain why us former Protestants now believe this "craziness", as some of my Protestant friends would say, I do not want to ignore nor neglect the same opportunity and challenges made by Catholics to our Protestant brethren.
The easy thing to do would be to not conclude anything and keep moving very ADD like from topic to topic with everyone getting in their little apologetic snippets. Even easier would be to "agree to disagree", but even this would require one to explain coherently what exactly we're disagreeing upon, and why. Neither of these, in my opinion, are very good bc I think it's very plainly clear that this question is answerable however controversial, or consequential that answer may be.
So, on this topic no one is asking you to win the argument from the Catholic perspective calling upon the Church's infallibility. I am asking for Protestants to use their own teaching which is "Scripture Alone" to explain Scripture Alone as part of larger discussion on how that doctrine, being unscriptural, can be true especially given the fact that the Church gave us the Scriptures not vice versa.
More later...
Rebecca, I'm afraid you misunderstand the definition of anathema, at least as it is used in the Catholic Church. It is, in fact, a statement of excommunication. Those who hold the views that are "anathematized" are cut off from the Church. As a Protestant, you are certainly free to hold those views or not, depending on your understanding. But you cannot be, or claim to be, a Catholic and hold those views. As for the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Statement on Justification (which I highly recommend to every Protestant), the question of the anathemas are specifically addressed. There are still points of doctrine over which Catholics cannot agree with Lutherans; but there are others in which the anathemas no longer apply, in light of Lutheran clarifications.
ReplyDeleteAn easier way to think of anathemas may be as boundaries, marking the theological game field. Step outside of the boundaries, and you incur the penalty (excommunication).
Hope this helps.
In Christ's Love,
Dave
How can an infallible council declare anathemas in the infallible Church that no longer apply? That seems like they have somehow been reformed (which would be impossible if they are infallible). This is where my main concerns lie with the idea of a council being unreformable.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that those who have been Protestant and converted to Catholicism have researched and read on this topic much more than I have and others who are just beginning to ask these questions. Asking me to provide the extensive research supporting Sola Scriptura that you have already researched yourself seems like an attacking and provoking approach this blog which is supposed to be welcoming a friendly discussion. I personally and not trying to defend any Biblical proof of Sola Scriptura and I have never claimed to. I am merely here to ask questions and try to understand what I see as discrepancies between the Church claiming to be infallible and actually practicing according to this claim. I completely understand why Alex is not participating in this discussion anymore. And if I did not have relationships with the Catholic believers outside of this blog, I may have made the same choice.
I also am having to make decisions about the use of my time because I'm supposed to be writing a thesis right now on topics completely unrelated to these. I obviously have not done the research that converted Catholics have done and I do not have the time right now to research as I would like. It will probably be years before I will be able to read all I would like to on this topic. So in the meantime, please do not attack me for not know as much about history as you do, Jake.
I will say that based on the very little that I have read about the historical context of Luther declaring Sola Scriptura as the ultimate authority, I do not agree with Jake's claim that it is the "battle cry" of the Reformation. I would argue (as others would) that Sola Fide was the actual issue of the Reformation dealing with justification, which inevitable brings into question the underlying question of authority. But I think it's important to remind that that main concern is the doctrine of justification. Luther never claimed that the Bible is the only authority of the church, he only claimed that the Bible is the only infallible authority and that the councils must be reformable, open to correction and critique. The Bible is the only infallible source of written special revelation (not excluding the existence of general revelation - just not infallibly). All of this question of the ability of a council or pope to err came out of Luther's belief that Pope Clement VI’s bull Unigenitus justifying the power of the pope the use of indulgences was contrary to Scripture.
Honestly, Jake, I haven't even read all of what you had to say about this issue of Sola Scriptura because it was too much information all at one time. I do better with dialogue about this things instead of lectures and attacks.
watch out or I might cry again or feel like throwing something ;)
ReplyDeleteRebecca, you raise the question of how the anathemas of an infallble Church can be changed. Put simply, they can be changed in light of new evidence. For example, in the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, this statement appears:
ReplyDelete"41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration."
What this means is that the Lutheran position has been sufficiently clarified so that their position, as stated in this Joint Statement, does not fall under the anathema of Trent. Likewise, the Catholic position has been clarified so that the Catholic position, as stated in the Joint Statement, does not fall under the anathema of the Augsburg Confession. In the past, both churches were arguing past each other, not really presenting their position with the greatest clarity. The anathemas haven't changed - and in fact, many of them still remain. Hence the churches remain divided on other issues. But the anathemas don't apply in this case, as the Lutherans have stated their position in such a way that if falls within the understanding of the Catholic Church. And hence the anathema doesn't apply.
Hope this helps!
Ok, then I'm definitely confused about the meaning of the Church and ecumenical councils being infallible if they can in fact be changed in light of new evidence. It just seems to me like some kind of loophole in order to go back on something that was already declared. I guess I can say I'm just not buying it. There are all these rules about what can or cannot be changed and under what circumstances. I do agree that church leaders need to be very cautious in change anything that has previously been established. There is no problem with that. But is something is able to be changed for any reason, then it is not infallible in my book.
ReplyDeleteRebecca,
ReplyDeleteWow - I really botched my last post to you. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. I did not mean to imply that the faith of the Church, as defined by ecumenical councils (or by the Pope when speaking ex cathedra), is subject to change "in light of new evidence." That is emphatically not the case.
It's true that there has been change in the Church, but these have involved change to discipline and practice (Mass in Latin vs. the vernacular, for example). But where faith and morals have been defined as binding matters requiring belief and obedience, there has been no change. For that reason, the anathemas declared by earlier councils are still in effect.
In the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, the Catholic Church did not change our teaching to agree with the Lutherans. As I read it, the Church realized there was enough "common ground" with the Lutherans on the issue of justification to warrant the Joint Statement. The Lutheran position was stated in such a way that it did not fall outside the "boundaries" set by the anathemas of Trent - therefore, it was acceptable to the Church. There are other areas of disagreement, on which the ananthemas still apply (for example, on the number and nature of the sacraments).
To reiterate, the infallibility of the Church pertains to essential dogmas of the faith, and moral practices (abortion for example). The Church cannot change these. This is a "hard saying" even for some Catholics to accept. For example, in responding to those who press for women's ordination to the priesthood, Pope John Paul the Great clearly stated that the Church could never change this, as this is not a mere practice or discipline (like celibacy) but an essential aspect of the doctrine of Holy Orders.
Now, if you want to talk about why the Church believes that she is infallible, we can discuss that in other posts. But I would not want you to reject it on the basis of my poor response to your earlier post.
I hope I've shed some new light here. I apologize again for the confusion I may have caused.
I've posted a series of articles on "The Path of Salvation" on my blog, if anyone is interested. Rather lengthy, so I've broken it up into a number of separate posts. Start at the bottom, and work your way up!
ReplyDeleteIn Christ,
Dave