 |
| Pope John XXIII elevating the Host |
Ever wonder why we refer to the Eucharistic species as “the Host”? The Latin hostia means “sacrifice,” and it is from this definition that the Eucharistic Host takes the name, as a reminder that in the Eucharist, Christ is the Sacrifice for our sins.
But the Latin word hostia comes from hostis, which has a fascinatingly wide range of meanings, from “victim” to “guest,” from “host” to “enemy.” Why this range of opposing (even contradictory) meanings? Because it arose from a word meaning “stranger,” and strangers can either be treated with hostility (as a threat or potential victim), or hospitality. And this complex word neatly captures several dimensions of our relationship with Christ, so it is worth exploring in greater detail.
Leon Kass explains the etymology of the word “host” on page 101 of The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature:
The English word host – one who lodges and entertains another in his home – stems from an Old French word (oste, hoste) that means both “host” and “guest,” primarily because it also means “stranger” or “foreigner.” (The original Latin root, hostis, from the Indo-European ghostis, means “stranger” and “enemy”; this meaning lies behind our use of host to mean an armed company of men, presumably hostile to us.)
A similar dual meaning of “host” and “guest” (and also “stranger” and “foreigner”) attaches to the Latin root hospes, source of our words hospital and hospice (originally a “house of hostel [italics added] for the reception and entertainment of pilgrims, travelers, and strangers”), hospitable (originally “affording welcome, entertainment, and generosity to strangers and visitors”; now “disposed to receive or welcome kindly), and hospitality, the practice of welcoming and tending generously to the needs and desires of stranger-guests. Much of the transformation of host from stranger and would be enemy to provider of hospitality is the work of often-elaborate custom. But such custom in fact gives expression to the natural human ability and willingness to recognize natural sameness despite and beneath conventional otherness.
So “Hostia” means, at once, (1) “Victim,” (2) “Host” (in the sense of “one who lodges and entertains another in his home”), (3) “Guest,” (4) “Stranger,” and (5) “Enemy.” In the Eucharist, we can see our relationship with Christ through all five of these lenses.
First, and most directly, the Eucharistic species is called the Host because Christ is Hostia, Victim. One of the most beautiful Eucharistic hymns, O Salutaris Hostia, literally means “O Saving Victim.” The lyrics to the hymn, in English:
O saving Victim, open wide
the gate of heaven to man below;
our foes press on from every side;
thine aid supply; thy strength bestow.
All praise and thanks to thee ascend
for evermore, blest One in Three;
O grant us life that shall not end
in our true native land with thee.
The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Calvary, and it was there that Christ offered Himself up to the Father as Sacrificial Victim, in Atonement for our sins. This role of Christ-as-Victim is referred to repeatedly in Scripture (see, e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:26).
Of course, Jesus is also the High Priest, so He is not the Victim in a helpless way, but in the sense of voluntarily offering up His life (Hebrews 7:27).
Christ is the Host, in the more conventional English usage of “one who lodges and entertains another in his home” in the Eucharist. We must never forget that He invites us to the Eucharistic banquet, and that the Mass is “the Lord’s Supper” (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:20). Ultimately, the Liturgy is not something that we offer to God, but something that He invites us into.
Likewise, the Church is “the House of God” (Hebrews 10:21; cf. 1 Peter 4:17). When you come to the Church, you are a guest in His House, eating His Heavenly Food, which He offers us gratuitously. In doing so, “you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19).
As noted above, the words for hospitality and hosting seem to arrive from the practice of taking a stranger (and potential enemy) and welcoming him in. Christ is the apex of hospitality in this sense: as Host, He takes us from being hostis, strangers (Eph. 2:19) and even enemies (Romans 5:10) of God, and He transforms us into His guests, going so far as to make us members of His Household.
Christ is also Host in the sense of being our Guest: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (Revelation 3:20). Christ remains the active party : He comes to us. Yet we still have the option to receive Him or not. Whether He enters our lives to Commune with us at the Lord’s Supper depends on whether or not “any one hears [His] voice and opens the door.”
So there is a sense, at Mass, in which are Christ’s guests. But there is another sense in which He becomes our Guest, which is why we pray, right before Communion (in words based off of the centurion’s prayer of Matthew 8:8), “Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.” Hostis refers to both host and guest, and Christ is both. And much more.
In the traditional Jewish wedding ritual, a crucial lens for understanding the relationship between Christ and the Church, the wedding occurred in two phases separated by as much as a year’s worth of time:
- First, the bridegroom would marry his bride, which Christ did during His time on Earth, creating the Church, and offering Himself up for Her entirely.
- Then, because “bachelor pads” weren’t a thing in ancient Judaism, the man would be permitted as much as a year to go off and prepare a home for his new wife. It’s during this year that the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive and bear a Son, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation, which we celebrate today. Mary and Joseph are wedded, but not yet living together.
Like the Virgin Mary, this is the same place we find ourselves today. The Bridegroom of the Church, Jesus Christ, has gone before us to Heaven to prepare a place for us, as He promised (John 13:1-3):
Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
We see this in a beautiful way in the consummation of all things, when He invites His Bride, the Church, to the “wedding feast of the Lamb,” as Revelation 19:6-9 prophesies:
19th century Jewish nissu’in in Eastern Europe.
The nissu’in was the second (and final) stage of the wedding.Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty thunderpeals, crying,
“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory,for the marriage of the Lamb has come,and his Bride has made herself ready;it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure”—for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.”
So Christ invites us into His Home, both to dine with Him, and to live with Him forever.
Earlier, I described the earthly Communion with Christ as “the apex of hospitality,” but I should modify that somewhat: the eternal and heavenly Eucharistic Banquet is the truest apex, in a such that it’s not even possible in this lifetime. The closest we can come in this life is in receiving the Blessed Sacrament at Mass.
I end up sharing almost all your posts on my facebook but they’re so good I usually don’t comment because there’s nothing to add!
Why, thank you!
So true! And I’m embarrassed to admit that I’ve never wondered this — but love & need the explanation all the same. thanks again.
What about the accidents of bread and wine “hosting” the substance the the Body and Blood of Christ?
Off-hand, I think that it would be more accurate to say that the Body and Blood of Christ “host” the accidents of bread and wine, but even that’s not quite true. The accidents don’t adhere to the Substance in the way that ordinarily occurs: rather, the accidents are metaphysically suspended, while the Substance appears under those accidents.
Since “The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Calvary, and it was there that Christ offered Himself up to the Father as Sacrificial Victim, in Atonement for our sins.” does this mean that every time that the mass is offered Christ is literally being offered?
As Hebrews says, Christ was sacrificed once and for all. My understanding [Joe, chime in here if I’m off-kilter] is that every Mass that has been and will be celebrated in the history of the Catholic Church, until the last day, is a participation of that one single sacrifice of Christ on the cross. So yes, Christ is being offered at every Mass, but to be clear, he is not being re-offered. The Mass is simply a participation in the once and for all crucifixion from Good Friday.
What Joe Q. said. In the Mass, Christ is re-Presented to the Father, but not re-Sacrificed.
It is important to understand the sacrifice of the Mass as a sacramental sacrifice. The substance of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is sacramentally represented by the two-fold consecration (separation of body and blood is a sign of death). The substance of the sacrifice of the Cross is the same as the substance of the sacrifice of the Mass, though the accidents differ, i.e. one is bloody, the other unbloody. Just as each consecrated Host is the one Christ and doesn’t multiply the one substance of the risen Christ, so too each individual Mass doesn’t multiply the substance of the one “once for all” sacrifice of Christ on the cross but rather applies the merits of it. The Mass is a different mode of Christ’s infinite self-oblation. The substance is the same, the accidents (time, space, appearances) differ.
Joe,
what does it mean “Christ is re-Presented to the Father”? Where in Scripture is this mentioned?
I don’t intend to answer for Joe, but here are some thoughts. Point # 1. At the Last Supper, Christ commands the apostles to “ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.” Now, poiein has sacrificial undertones (see LXX Ex 10:25 and Lev 5:10 for starters), as does anamnesis (always used for rememorative sacrifices!). In sum, in commanding the apostles to take bread and wine and consecrate them as Christ’s body and blood, Jesus then says effectively, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice, for I am the New Passover Lamb.” Point #2. Note the plural of Heb 9:23: “Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” One sacrifice of Christ sacramentally represented and renewed (which is what memorial sacrifices do) multiple times.
A sacrifice in the Old Testament is offered and consumed. A sacrifice is not completed until both are accomplished. Christ has offered Himself on the Cross. Now, in order for the sacrifice of Calvary to be completed, we must consume the Sacrifice. Therefore, Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, ….
dmw,
I still don’t understand why “One sacrifice of Christ sacramentally represented and renewed (which is what memorial sacrifices do) multiple times” if Jesus said it was finished on the cross and “.. He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Heb 10:12-14?
What is the mass supposed to do for you?
dmw,
“The substance of the sacrifice of the Cross is the same as the substance of the sacrifice of the Mass, though the accidents differ, i.e. one is bloody, the other unbloody.”
How can the sacrifice of the Cross be the same as the substance of the sacrifice of the Mass? If they were the same there would be real blood present at the mass.
Who in the first-second century would have believed about the Lord’s supper to mean “The substance is the same, the accidents (time, space, appearances) differ”?
Meyu,
The one sacrifice is perpetuated through history in mystery so that we may participate in the one saving sacrifice. We bring our priestly sacrifices to the altar where they are perfected by Christ and offered to the Father. In this way we, who are sanctified through Baptism are perfected. However, the Passover sacrifice was not completed by the offering of the lamb but had to be partaken of. We must also eat the lamb and we we do we are more closely configured to Christ, our lives become more of an oblation to the Father. So, the grace of the Cross is applied to us individually in this time and place. One Sacrifice through which individuals through out history are made holy, share in the Divine Life. We are not made holy by a decree of righteousness pronounced by the Father, but through a share in grace by which we turn away from sin and really begin to live righteous lives, even supernatural lives.
Meyu, I suggest you check out Darwell Stone’s work A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofdoctrin01ston#page/n5/mode/2up. He was an Anglican scholar in the late 19th to early 20th c. You’ll find plenty of evidence in the early Fathers concerning the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. Additionally, you would do well to research what Catholic theology means by substance and accident. These Aristotelian derived terms offer helpful philosophical tools to understand what is ultimately a mystery beyond comprehension. Finally, you made the point that Christ’s work is finished on the cross. Well, in a sense you are mistaken: Rom 4:25. And also, Heb 7:25. What then does the Mass do? By it, Christ’s body the Church is able to unite itself to her Head in offering itself through him, with him, and in him all glory and honor to the Father. All human attempts at sacrifice fail. It is only by uniting ourselves with Christ’s all sufficient sacrifice that we are able by grace to offer fitting worship to God, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Mal 1:11.
Meyu,
If you’re genuinely curious about what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist, I’ve got several posts on that subject. You can start here, if you would like:
Church Fathers (1st-2nd Century) on the Eucharist
Church Fathers (3rd Century) on the Eucharist
Church Fathers (4th Century) on the Eucharist
I.X.,
Joe
dmw,
Am I to believe that the apostles and those after them needed to know Aristotelian derived terms to understand what is ultimately a mystery beyond comprehension?
BTW- didn’t Jesus say from the cross “it is finished” (John 19:30)? Yes. In a religious context it has the idea of fulfilling one’s religious obligation. See john 17:4. The word has been found in papyri being paced on receipts for taxes for meaning “paid in full”. Same idea in Col 2:13-14.
Our being united to Christ comes about by believing in Christ for salvation and the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ. See Rom 6.
meyuApril 9, 2013 at 7:05 PM
dmw,
I still don’t understand why “One sacrifice of Christ sacramentally represented and renewed (which is what memorial sacrifices do) multiple times” if Jesus said it was finished on the cross and “.. He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Heb 10:12-14?
There are several things there. Jesus said, “it is finished” on the Cross because:
Hebrews 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
He perfected by one sacrifice those who are sanctified, because He opened the Gates of heaven to those who have died in His grace:
Heb 11: 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
What is the mass supposed to do for you?
The Mass is the Sacrament of unity. It is in the Mass that we receive the Eucharist which makes us one with Christ:
John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
And it is in the Mass wherein we praise God with one mouth and one mind:
Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
How can the sacrifice of the Cross be the same as the substance of the sacrifice of the Mass? If they were the same there would be real blood present at the mass.
There is real blood in the Mass. But you can only see it by the eyes of faith:
1 Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Who in the first-second century would have believed about the Lord’s supper to mean “The substance is the same, the accidents (time, space, appearances) differ”?
Everyone. St. Paul said:
1 Corinthians 11:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
Did the apostles or anyone after them, including us, need philosophical terms to understand divinely revealed mysteries? No, of course not, and that’s not what I said. Philosophy, i.e. approaching reality using reason, helps us to penetrate mysteries more deeply. And if you know anything of the Christological debates that raged for the first centuries of the Church, you’ll know that philosophical language was necessary for the Church to define orthodox doctrine against the heretics.
Yes, Jesus did say from the cross that “it” was finished. Now, we have to understand what our Lord means by “it.” As I pointed out, look to Rom 4:25 to see that He was crucified for our sins but raised for our justification. There is more nuance than just saying, “Well, Christ did it all so I don’t have to.” Christ invites us to share in His suffering so that our human nature might be perfected in Him: Luke 9:23; Romans 8:17; Hebrews 12:10-11; 1 Peter 4:13; and esp. Colossians 1:24.
Yes, of course, the Church agrees that union with Christ comes by belief in Him; however, “the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified” (Trent, Sess. 6, ch. 7). Hence, as Paul says in Galatians 3:26-27. So, I urge you to read Trent on Justification.
meyu, what helps me most when puzzling over these mysteries (the Greek word “mysterion” is roughly translated into Latin by “sacramentum”) is to remember that Jesus Christ is both God AND Man. As man, he shed real human blood, in a real historical event that, as a man, took place at one point in time. As God, however, he is not restricted by time. Jesus Christ exists eternally to offer himself to the Father. By entering into the mystery of the Mass, we participate in that one perpetual sacrifice which is both temporal (in the historical man Jesus) and eternal (in the eternally Begotten Son Jesus). We believe that, by entering into that supernatural event, we can partake of all that is offered – Body and Blood, Soul and DIVINITY. Jesus’ humanity cannot be separated from his divinity. It is all one Person. St. Justin Martyr is one of the earliest sources of info about this Christian belief in the sacrifice of the Mass. In his First Apology #66 he states: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” This was written around 150 AD and indicates an understanding of the sacramental reality of the Body and Blood which was already well established.
Alex Hill,
Its always best to start from Scripture to determine the meaning and implications of the Lord’s supper. I can’t find one reference in the NT that leads me to think that “Jesus Christ exists eternally to offer himself to the Father. By entering into the mystery of the Mass, we participate in that one perpetual sacrifice which is both temporal (in the historical man Jesus) and eternal (in the eternally Begotten Son Jesus).” What passage in Scripture makes you think this?
If “Jesus’ humanity cannot be separated from his divinity” then this destroys the incarnation. It means that Jesus the man was not really a man but God. He would not be the God-Man. Jesus was limited as a man i.e. could not be in more than one place at once for example.
“If “Jesus’ humanity cannot be separated from his divinity” then this destroys the incarnation. It means that Jesus the man was not really a man but God. He would not be the God-Man. Jesus was limited as a man i.e. could not be in more than one place at once for example.”
This whole passage is heretical. It’s a denial of the hypostatic union, and contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, whose Christology is affirmed both by Catholics and all mainstream Protestants. The hypostatic union is such that the humanity and divinity of Christ, while distinct natures, are (since the Resurrection) inseparable.
And the notion that Jesus couldn’t be in more than one place at a time is also false: a notion that I’ve answered elsewhere on the blog (in a post from May 2011 called “Can Christ’s Glorified Body be in Locked Rooms and in the Eucharist?”).
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Was Jesus at His supper in His glorified body? No. That’s why you can’t have Him also be in the bread and wine. This is why the symbolic position makes the best sense of what He is saying. Jesus the man could not be in more than one place at a time. Even after the resurrection He was never in 2 places at once. If you think He was then I will need book, chapter and verse for this.
Meyu said:
Joe,
Was Jesus at His supper in His glorified body? No. That’s why you can’t have Him also be in the bread and wine. This is why the symbolic position makes the best sense of what He is saying. Jesus the man could not be in more than one place at a time. Even after the resurrection He was never in 2 places at once. If you think He was then I will need book, chapter and verse for this.
How do you separate Jesus from the glory which is within Him:
Matthew 17:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Did Jesus not walk on the water? Did Jesus not produce many wonderful signs of His own power? Was this not the glory of God which was within Him?
Well, there is also not one reference in the Scripture which says “its always best to start from Scripture to determine the meaning and implications of the Lord’s supper.” But there is a direct quote from Jesus Christ, to his apostles, saying: “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16). Jesus, in his eternal wisdom (and he IS Eternal Wisdom, although the Bible doesn’t exactly say that) didn’t tell anyone to “do what is written down.” He commissioned them to teach in his name what he taught them. The Church is the Christ-mandated authority for the meaning of scripture. Popes, Bishops, Doctors, and lots of thinkers much smarter than me lead me to think exactly what I’ve said, and they’ve made those determinations from Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The only reason we HAVE Scripture is because of the teaching authority of those very Fathers of the Church.
This comment has been removed by the author.
And I won’t address the last part of your comment about the nature of Christ’s humanity, his divinity, and how they can exist unseparated in one Person. The Council of Ephesus in 431 hashed that out pretty definitively. But I’m assuming you don’t accept the findings of Church Councils because the wording of their determinations are not in the Bible?
Scripture is the best place to start because its in the Scripture alone that we find the teachings of Christ. If its not found in Scripture then its man-made. Agreed?
How do you know that “Scripture is the best place to start because its [sic] in the Scripture alone that we find the teachings of Christ”? Where does Scripture say this, specifically the “alone” part?
Where else do we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles?
Meyu,
1) Before answering this question, let me at least remark on how bizarre this position is. You’re going to hold to sola Scriptura (a doctrine not found in Scripture), unless you can be shown evidence directly contrary to it?
Not only would this standard permit all sorts of crazy doctrines (Jesus had five arms – show me a verse that disproves this!), it’s the complete antithesis of sola Scriptura, the very doctrine you’re trying to defend!
2) I’ve already answered this question when you posed it (in slightly different form) on the last post. St. John says that “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30), and concludes his Gospel by saying: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).
And 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” This directly refutes sola Scriptura. If Scripture (Apostolic Tradition “by letter”) is all there is, why does Paul make sure to tell the Christians to obey it and Apostolic Tradition “by word of mouth”?
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Sola Scriptura i.e. the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God is not a bizarre position to take. In fact, its the only position that can account for apostolic doctrine since it alone contains only apostolic writings. There are no apostolic teachings outside the Scripture. If you disagree then please tell me what they are and where I can find them.
On #2 it is true that “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book” and “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written”. The problem is that we have no access to these teachings. They are forever out of reach to us today. The disciples and those close to the Lord Jesus and His apostles did hear things not recorded in the NT. We don’t know what they were since they were either never written down or were and are lost to us.
It is also true that Paul had other traditions –“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” We have the same problem as we do with John. All that we know of what Paul taught is found only in his letters.
Now if you want to claim that you know of these other teachings and traditions of Jesus and the apostles then please tell me specifically what they are and how you know them. I would love to know if there is more of the teachings of Christ and His apostles not recorded in the NT.
Meyu,
What I’m calling “a bizarre position to take” is your claim that X is true unless I can find evidence directly contrary to it. My point was that this position would permit all sorts of crazy doctrines: can you find evidence directly contrary to the claim that Jesus had five arms?
But what make the position bizarre in this case isn’t just that it would permit innumerable heresies. It’s that the position is the antithesis of sola Scriptura. You’re trying to simultaneously hold that all doctrines come from Scripture, and that you can hold doctrines not from Scripture, as long as I can’t prove (from Scripture) that you’re wrong.*
The supreme irony is that you develop this anti-sola Scriptura position in an attempt to salvage your belief in … sola Scriptura itself.
a – You’re not claiming that sola Scriptura is true because the Bible says so: it doesn’t.
b – You’re not even denying that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 denies sola Scriptura.
c- You’re essentially saying that unless I can show that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is still true, you’re going to treat it as false, and assume that the Traditions Paul told us to follow don’t exist (and therefore, don’t need to be followed).
Do I need to point out that this is the furthest possible renunciation of sola Scriptura? You’re not deriving sola Scriptura from Scripture alone. You’re actually deriving it in the face of Scriptural evidence directly contrary to the doctrine. You can’t do that. You can’t nullify the word of God (2 Thes. 2:15) for the sake of your man-made traditions (sola Scriptura).
You want to know what sort of Traditions we know from outside Scripture, and that’s a good question, but before we get there, I think you need to concede that some such Traditions must exist, or Scripture is wrong.
Joe
*Imagine that I used a similar tactic to “prove” Catholic doctrines. Can you show me from Scripture that the Assumption of Mary is false? Otherwise, by your standard, it must be true!
Joe,
You have a knack for making simple things complicated. We both agree that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant (at least I hope so). Sola Scriptura is derived from the nature of the Scripture itself i.e. they alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is.
Not all doctrines come from Scripture. That is especially true for your church. If a doctrine cannot be grounded in Scripture then it is not apostolic nor binding. Only doctrines grounded in Scripture are.
I know that Jesus and His apostles taught things not found in Scripture. Those who personally knew them would have had a chance to hear these things. No debate there. The problem is that we don’t what they were since we don’t have a record of them.
Now if you want to talk about Traditions outside of Scripture that’s fine. I’m wondering if you are going to claim if they are inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is?
If you were to try to prove the Assumption of Mary you would have to have evidence for such a claim and not mere assertions. Lack of evidence is not proof and we would need to look at the nature of the evidence for it. In the case of the the assumption of Mary is not mentioned until 377 and it says no one knows what happened to her.
On #c i.e. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to be true today, you are going to have to show what traditions that Paul is specifically referring to otherwise we can’t follow what we don’t know.
Meyu,
You say, “they alone [the Scriptures] are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing else is.” Sed contra, Paul says that the words he preached (prior to writing his letter) to the Thessalonians is the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
Meyu,
You say, “If a doctrine cannot be grounded in Scripture then it is not apostolic nor binding. Only doctrines grounded in Scripture are.” Now, would you affirm the proposition that the Canon of Scriptures (i.e. a list of which books belong among those considered inspired by God and inerrant) is binding? If you deny the proposition, you are treading dangerous waters. If you affirm the proposition, then you need an infallible extra-biblical authority to make the decision.
dmw,
Yes the canon of Scripture is binding because the books of the canon are inspired-inerrant. Christ did use men in the church and the church itself to determine which books belonged in the canon. It did not require that the men who did so be infallible. Men can discover the truth and know the truth without being infallible. Agreed?
dmw,
Paul did preach the Word. All we have from him are his letters. Nothing else. So if he preached something that is not in his letters then we don’t know what that was because there is no record of it.
“Paul did preach the Word. All we have from him are his letters. Nothing else. So if he preached something that is not in his letters then we don’t know what that was because there is no record of it.”
1. What are you basing this off of?
2. Where does it say this in Scripture?
3. Where does Paul say that all we have to do is follow the Traditions he passes on by letter, and not the ones by word of mouth?
4. You say that I’m making simple things complicated, but I think that you’re just being uncurious. If you critically examined your assumption here, you’d realize it’s self-refuting to hold the doctrine that all doctrines must come from Scripture, when (a) that doctrine doesn’t even come from Scripture, and (b) the canon of Scripture doesn’t come from Scripture.
Meyu,
You say, “the canon of Scripture is binding because the books of the canon are inspired-inerrant. Christ did use men in the church and the church itself to determine which books belonged in the canon.” Now, do you take this on faith, do you believe this, or is this just your opinion? If you take it on faith, then you are believing something not contained in Scripture and thus violating your own first principles. It boils down to this: How do you know that the books contained in your Bible are inspired and inerrant? What do you do with the deuterocanon, then? The Catholic Church accepts them as inerrant and inspired. Do you? If so, why not? If there is no infallible authority to make the judgment, how are we supposed to know?
Joe,
What else do we have from Paul besides his letters? Give me some evidence that we have more than his NT letters then you will have proven my point is incorrect. If you can’t, then I am right since there exist nothing outside of the NT that we know of for Paul’s letters.
#3– The the Thessalonians who he knew personally would know of his traditions and what he spoke to them. We don’t. All we have is what is in the NT. Agreed?
#4 I did not say all doctrines come from Scripture. Rather only those doctrines that are grounded in Scripture are apostolic. Those doctrines not grounded in Scripture are not apostolic. The Marian doctrines are an example of this. So is the papacy.
# b- the canon of Scripture is made up of the Scripture. You can’t have one without the other.
dmw,
I believe in the canon because I believe Christ made it known to the early church through various tests which books belonged in the NT. Christ used fallible men to determine this. These men did not make these books inspired-inerrant. Only God could do that.
As for the deuterocanon, these books were not considered inspired-inerrant until Trent. They were in dispute by the church for centuries and for good reasons.
How much do you know and believe in your life that is not based on some kind of ” infallible authority”? Is it a requirement to have an infallible authority to know the truth about something?
1. That’s just an evasive burden-shifting argument. You make a claim you can’t support from Scripture, and then say that unless I can prove you wrong, you’re right?
Is that really a hermeneutic that you’re prepared to endorse? That whatever isn’t specifically denied in Scripture is true? Whatever isn’t specifically forbidden is permitted?
Like I said before: “What I’m calling “a bizarre position to take” is your claim that X is true unless I can find evidence directly contrary to it. My point was that this position would permit all sorts of crazy doctrines: can you find evidence directly contrary to the claim that Jesus had five arms?”
You completely ignored this point last time around. So I’ll ask my question again: What are you basing this off of?
2. You seem to have ignored this question as well, so I’ll ask it again: Where does it say this in Scripture?
3. No, I disagree. That’s my point. You’re making an assumption on the basis of apparently … nothing?
And it’s an assumption you seem to have uncritically accepted, and assume everyone accepts. But every Christian Church that can trace its history to the first century shares a common acceptance of Apostolic Tradition as coming from the Apostles, and we all reject sola Scriptura. Together, we represent the overwhelming majority of the world’s Christians. Yet Protestants act as if doctrines like sola Scriptura have always been accepted, and are just widely-agreed upon by all Christians. These are false assumptions that run directly contrary to the facts. You can’t defend an uncritical assumption by saying, “but don’t we all agree on this?”
4. Your claim is that all Christian doctrines should (or must) come from Scripture, correct? Or do you deny this?
a. You didn’t answer this, unless you’re now saying that sola Scriptura isn’t an Apostolic Teaching. In which case, it sounds like you agree that it’s an instance of Protestants nullifying the word of God (2 Thes. 2:15) for their man-made tradition.
b. The canon of Scripture is a doctrine not found in Scripture. We can infer from the internal content of 2 Peter that it is true (it’s written as a work of non-fiction, etc.). But on what basis would we further determine that it’s Divinely inspired?
c. Sola Scriptura is the meta-doctrine within (at least Evangelical) Protestantism: every other doctrine, from the Trinity to the divinity of Christ, is based upon what the Scriptures say. And to know what the Scriptures say, you need to know which Books are Scripture. If there’s no way of knowing which Books are Scripture, there’s no way of knowing what Scripture says on anything for the sola Scripturist. So you can’t just shrug this enormous contradiction off, because it undermines every last one of your religious beliefs. Do you see why this is the case? You seem oddly unconcerned about this.
I.X.
Joe
P.S. You’re wrong about the Marian doctrines and papacy, but that’s neither here nor there. Let’s please stick to one topic at a time. If you’re really interested in those topics, I’ve written on them extensively.
Joe,
Please show me what else what Paul taught that is not recorded in the NT. Same goes for what Jesus taught and did that was not recorded.
Let’s get this cleared up then we can move on to Sola Scriptura.
But whence do you derive this belief that “Christ made it known to the early church through various tests which books belonged in the NT.” I’m afraid we’re going to continue arguing around and around in circles until you realize the flaw in your (and Protestant) logic regarding the canon.
You statement about the deuterocanon as not considered inspired-inerrant until Trent is patently false. Please consult the Synod of Rome in 382 and the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419).
And since Joe’s post is about the Eucharist, I’ll let Joe continue this thread as he sees fit. Before we can talk about infallibility and infallible authority, you need to do some research into what the Church means by these terms. I’m sure Joe’s blog does so elsewhere.
Meyu,
This is literally the exact same burden-shifting argument you’ve tried the last several comments in a row. Repeating the same argument over and over again won’t make us forget that it’s:
(a) Evasive: it’s transparent that you’re using this mantra to avoid unanswerable criticisms of sola Scriptura.
(b) Burden-shifting: you get to make spurious claims, and make us prove you wrong? You’re the one holding a doctrine that directly denies the truth of 2 Thes. 2:15!
(c) A terrible hermeneutic: As I keep saying, you can use this to justify nearly any heresy: “Show where the Bible says Jesus didn’t have five arms!” “Show where Jesus specifically condemned human cloning!” It’s a Pandora’s box.
(d) The abandonment of sola Scriptura: The doctrine you’re trying to defend holds that all doctrines must come from Scripture. But the doctrine itself doesn’t come from Scripture. So you want to reject sola Scriptura when it’s convenient (like in determining the canon, or in making up sola Scriptura as a principle).
(e) The antithesis of sola Scriptura: That last point shows the intellectual hypocrisy of your position well enough, but you are abandoning sola Scriptura in favor of the antithetically opposed doctrine that you can hold any doctrine not specifically denied by Scripture.
We don’t even need to “move on to Sola Scriptura.” You’re showing that it’s false and unworkable by your inability to defend the doctrine without violating it.
I.X.,
Joe
P.S. If you’re just not going to answer the questions, just say so. But at this point, your evasiveness is just rude and borderline dishonest. You’ve blithely disregarded the entirety of my last comment, and several other comments.
Meyu,
On the canon of Scripture, you claim that you “believe in the canon because I believe Christ made it known to the early church through various tests which books belonged in the NT.” Be more specific: which men? What tests? What canon?
I.X.,
Joe
dmw,
Ok. I realize i have a flawed Protestant logic regarding the canon. You win.
You do realize that the Synod of Rome in 382 does not have the same list as those accepted by Hippo and Carthage. Were these councils local councils and did they claim infallibility in there pronouncements?
Meyu,
That’s wonderful! Since this was your basis of faith (as you just told us), does that mean that you will now believe in the full Catholic Bible believed by the early Christians?
Also, the Synod of Rome’s canon was identical to Carthage’s, Hippo’s, and ours today:
http://www.taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
I asked you a direct question in regards to Paul in 2 Thes 2:15. I want to get into Sola Scriptura with you but I need an answer to what “Paul taught that is not recorded in the NT. Same goes for what Jesus taught and did that was not recorded.”
Joe-dmw,
If the 7 books in your Bible contain errors should it be considered Scripture?
Some of the tests for the NT canon was:
1) Was the book written by an apostle or one closely associated with one?
2) Did the book speak with the authority of God?
3) Was the book accepted by the people of God?
These are just some of the tests that was used to determine canonicity of the NT. As you you can see these tests would have ruled out all gnostic gospels for example.
Meyu,
People assert that there are errors in each of the 73 Books of our Bible. That doesn’t threaten their canonicity.
All I really ask if for Christians to be consistent. You can’t hold one standard for Books you want to accept as Scripture, and another standard for Books you don’t want to accept as Scripture. In your case, you “believe in the canon because I believe Christ made it known to the early church through various tests which books belonged in the NT.”
That’s a very good standard.* You then followed your own argument, and it led you to the Catholic Bible. What is there left to say?
I.X.,
Joe
*There are actually some problems with this test in the precise way that you formulated it (because it relies on false assumptions, like the assumption that the early Church only determined the NT canon).But to the extent that you’re deferring to the early Church, it’s a great standard.
Joe,
Let me respond to these points:
“(c) A terrible hermeneutic: As I keep saying, you can use this to justify nearly any heresy: “Show where the Bible says Jesus didn’t have five arms!” “Show where Jesus specifically condemned human cloning!” It’s a Pandora’s box.”
If someone wants to claim that Jesus didn’t have 5 arms then he needs to show why I should consider such a thing to begin with. Same for cloning. Where did Jesus even address such a thing? If He never addressed it directly, then is there any indirect statements on it? If not, then we must not claim He did.
“(d) The abandonment of sola Scriptura: The doctrine you’re trying to defend holds that all doctrines must come from Scripture. But the doctrine itself doesn’t come from Scripture. So you want to reject sola Scriptura when it’s convenient (like in determining the canon, or in making up sola Scriptura as a principle).”
Again, i never said all doctrines “must come from Scripture.” What I said is that if a doctrine is to be considered apostolic it must be grounded in Scripture since it is in Scripture alone that we find apostolic teachings. It is found nowhere else. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is grounded on the nature of Scripture itself being inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is God speaking to us and so that makes it the highest authority. All other authorities are to be in subjection to the Scripture.
Meyu,
On (c), you seem to recognize why this hermeneutic would be a disaster on topics like the number of arms that Jesus Christ had, and His views on cloning. There are, of course, innumerable other examples that we could use as well.
Doesn’t that suggest to you that this isn’t the hermeneutic you want to build all of your doctrinal beliefs off of?
On (d), you’re drawing a distinction between doctrines needing to be from Scripture, and all Apostolic doctrines being from Scripture. I’m not sure that I understand the distinction that you’re making.
You’re also claiming that sola Scriptura “is grounded on the nature of Scripture itself being inspired-inerrant Word of God.” Two points:
(i) You’re begging the question. Sola Scriptura holds that the only word of God is Scripture. You can’t prove it by assuming that the only word of God is Scripture. That’s the very issue in dispute!
(ii) Scripture says that Scripture isn’t the only word of God. In the primary sense, it’s Jesus Christ, not Scripture or Tradition, Who is the Word of God (Hebrews 11:3), and the Revelation of the Father (Heb. 1:1-3).
In the secondary sense, Scripture applies “word of God” to both written and unwritten Tradition. In Acts 4:31, the believers “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.” In Acts 13:46, Paul and Barnabas say that it “was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you.” Likewise, in Acts 15:7, Peter reminds the Church “that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.” Acts 18:11 tells us that Paul spent 18 months “teaching the word of God” in Corinth.
And of course, as I’ve already pointed out, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly describes Apostolic Tradition as including both Scripture and unwritten Tradition.
So you can’t build the doctrine of sola Scriptura off of the false assumption that Scripture is the only word of God.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Actually the principles that are derived from Sola Scriptura are powerful and sure in building doctrines on and in dealing with all kinds of issues. Take the crazy idea that Jesus had more than 2 arms. Anyone who would make such a claim bears the burden to prove that. Why would I even entertain such a notion? This is the same kind of nonsense I get from skeptics and atheists.
Sola Scriptura does not claim to have all the answers that people want. It is solid for building doctrines on and for how we are to live our lives in Christ. The Scriptures will either give us direct answers to our questions or give us principles like in Proverbs. This is why we are to have the word of Christ richly dwelling in us (Col 3:16). As we do, then we will gain His thinking and discernment in life.
In regards to #(i) there is no other inspired-inerrant Word of God. That has been already established by the church in regards to the canon. No need to rehash it here.
#(ii)- though Christ is also referred to the Word that does not mean the Bible is not the Word of God also. Jesus is the Word of God in the flesh while the written Scriptures are the Word of God.
In regards to “word of God” to both written and unwritten Tradition” is problematic for you. What “unwritten Traditions” are the word of God? I need some examples.
While the Lord Christ and the apostles were alive there was an oral Word of God being spoken but that time has passed. All we have today are the written Scriptures. This is why 2 Thessalonians 2:15 doesn’t really help your case because we don’t know the specifics of what Paul orally taught. No one knows.
This comment has been removed by the author.
meyuApril 9, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Scripture is the best place to start because its in the Scripture alone that we find the teachings of Christ. If its not found in Scripture then its man-made. Agreed?
No. If it’s not found in the Word of God which is passed down in Tradition and Scripture, then it is man made.
Jesus did not write Scripture. Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Teachings (i.e. Traditions).
This Church which He established eventually wrote down what He Taught. It is this Written Teaching which we call the New Testament. Basically, the New Testament is based upon the Traditions of the Church. The reason why you have so much trouble understanding the New Testament is because you have no foundation in the Traditions which are the Word of God and the basis of the New Testament.
Furthermore, these same Traditions are the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because in these Traditions is found outright He who fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.
The Key to understanding Scripture are the Traditions which the Protestants discarded. Without them you are floundering in the ocean with no way to navigate.
meyuApril 9, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Where else do we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles?
In the Sacred Traditions which the Catholic Church has been passing down since the time of Christ and which are the basis of the New Testament and the fulfillment of the Old.
meyuApril 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM
You said to Joe
Joe,
I asked you a direct question in regards to Paul in 2 Thes 2:15. I want to get into Sola Scriptura with you but I need an answer to what “Paul taught that is not recorded in the NT. Same goes for what Jesus taught and did that was not recorded.”
Nothing. That is why Sola Scriptura is not a valid doctrine. Neither of them, Jesus nor St. Paul, taught Sola Scriptura. Furthermore, only those Doctrines which are found in Sacred Tradition and in Sacred Scripture are valid. Sola Scripture is neither in Scripture nor in Tradition.
De Maria,
Maybe you can tell me what “Paul taught that is not recorded in the NT. Same goes for what Jesus taught and did that was not recorded.” Do you have an example of them?
What “Sacred Tradition” are you referring to? Is it something outside of Scripture and if so please give me and example.
Where has your church listed these “Traditions”? I need to know specifically what these are and what your church says they are before I can know if your points are valid.
Before I respond, please read this:
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
What Protestants don’t understand is that Sacred Tradition has been written down. It is called the New Testament.
Jesus Christ did not write anything down. He established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Teachings. Another word for Teachings is Traditions.
That Church then wrote down the Traditions and called that the New Testament.
This is why valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. And invalid doctrines are found neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.
Take for instance, Sola Scriptura. You will find it neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.
Any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Sacred Traditions taught by the Catholic Church also contradicts the Sacred Scriptures and will not be found therein.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Did the apostles and the early church believe that the Scripture alone was inspired-inerrant?
Did the early church teach that the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or I Clement was inspired-inerrant?
Is there anything else that is considered to be inspired and inerrant besides the Scripture?
BTW- In regards your answer to my question in regards to to Paul in 2 Thes 2:15 to what “Paul taught that is not recorded in the NT. Same goes for what Jesus taught and did that was not recorded.” you said “nothing”. So we agree that we don’t know what these other things were and so it is irrelevant to us today. Correct?
De Maria,
You said-“Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Teachings (i.e. Traditions).”
If your church is to “to pass down His Teachings (i.e. Traditions)” Where did Jesus teach that Mary was immaculately conceived? Where did He teach she was without sin?
Hi Meyu,
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Did the apostles and the early church believe that the Scripture alone was inspired-inerrant?
Scripture gives you the answer to that question.
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Jesus Christ breathed the Holy Ghost into the Church, therefore the Church is inspired of God. Do you deny that?
Here’s another:
2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Holy men of God were inspired to PREACH. That is one of the means by which we pass down Sacred Tradition. Later, these men wrote down the Bible. These men are they who comprised the Church. Do you deny it?
Therefore, Sacred Tradition is inspired and without error. That is in Scripture.
Did the early church teach that the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or I Clement was inspired-inerrant?
Not as I know of. Those documents do not comprise Sacred Tradition. But much of what they teach supports Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. That is why they are valued.
Is there anything else that is considered to be inspired and inerrant besides the Scripture?
The Teaching of the Church which Scripture states:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The Teaching of the Church is the Wisdom of God. Do you claim that the Wisdom of God contains errors?
BTW- In regards your answer to my question in regards to to Paul in 2 Thes 2:15 to what “Paul taught that is not recorded in the NT. Same goes for what Jesus taught and did that was not recorded.” you said “nothing”. So we agree that we don’t know what these other things were and so it is irrelevant to us today. Correct?
I don’t know what you are talking about. The Traditions of the Catholic Church are recorded in the Scriptures either by implication or explicitly.
Protestant doctrines which contradict Catholic Teaching are unknown to the Apostles.
If your church is to “to pass down His Teachings (i.e. Traditions)” Where did Jesus teach that Mary was immaculately conceived?
It is recorded in the Gospel of Luke 1:28:
Luke 1:28
King James Version (KJV)
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored (kecharitomene), the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Kecharitomene means that Mary was ever filled with grace. There was no time when she was not filled with grace.
Where did He teach she was without sin?
The Gospel of St. Luke is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Further….
Protestant doctrine has stripped the Gospel of Jesus Christ of its power by casting aside the Traditions which are the key to understanding the Word of God.
Meyu,
Let’s summarize scripture on the topic:
We know Jesus is the Lamb to take away the sins of the world by His sacrifice.
We know that the pascha sacrifice was tied to the seder meal.
We see the Last Supper as the seder meal of the new covenant.
The Last Supper instituted the Eucharist.
We know it is a sacrifice because it takes place on an altar. Almost every protestant church has an area they call an altar. An altar is where you sacrifice stuff. Plus the Bible says that Gentiles will continuesly make pure offerings to the Lord. And there’s only ONE really pure sacrifice…
We know that there is only one sacrifice.
We know the Lord said His flesh was food indeed, His blood drink indeed, the bread is His body broken, the wine His blood shed.
I can make every one of those facts fit coherently into the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist.
That is so important Daniel. You said:
I can make every one of those facts fit coherently into the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist.
Wihtout twisting. Without changing words. Without adding words. But we can’t say the same for Protestant doctrine. In order for Protestant doctrine to have any sort of coherence, they must take it out of context of the rest of Scripture. Let me give an example. Sola Scriptura.
First, the title.
a. Sola means “alone”. But the very first thing that Protestant will tell you, is that they do accept some form of Church authority. Therefore, the title it itself a misnomer and doesn’t fit coherently within its own definition.
b. Along the same lines, you won’t find Protestants handing out Bibles and being happy with whatever you understand from that Bible. No. They insist on telling you what the Bible means. Where is the alone part of the Bible “alone” then?
c. It is not in Scripture. They will insist that they must see the word, “purgatory” or “indulgence” in Scripture or it is not a valid doctrine on that basis. But, where is the term “Scripture alone”? Its not there. On the same basis that they disqualify Catholic Doctrine, they ought to disqualify their own. But they don’t.
d. They often give 2 Tim 3:16 as a basis for Sola Scriptura, but that doesn’t speak of Sola anything anywhere. If you read the entire book, it is about passing on Tradition. The only mention of Scirpture is in 2 Tim 3:16 in order to supplement the teaching or handing down of Tradition to make a man of God perfect in good works.
So, that last sentence of yours is very important. Catholic Doctrine fits coherently in Scripture. But that isn’t surprising since it is the basis of the New Testament and contains the knowledge of He who is the fulfillment of the Old.
Protestant Doctrine which contradicts Catholic Tradition also contradicts Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
meyuApril 9, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Where else do we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles?
In the Sacred Traditions which the Catholic Church has been passing down from the time of Christ.
Please give me an example of a “Sacred Traditions which the Catholic Church has been passing down from the time of Christ” that is not in Scripture.
Didn’t you understand what I said? There is none. Catholic Doctrine is in Tradition and Scripture. Only Protestant doctrine is absent from Tradition and Scripture because it is man made.
Read my lips. Catholic Doctrine is in both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Protestant doctrine which contradicts Catholic Doctrine is absent from both.
Meyu, you’ve asked this question continuously and refused to accept several answers. But I’ll pose one really crucial one. You declare as UNSCRIPTURAL the Catholic belief in the actuality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. While I disagree, you insist that it is not explicit in scripture, therefore according to your standard, the Catholic position on the reality of the Body and Blood is “Tradition.”
This “Tradition” has been passed down continuously from the time of the earliest writings of the Church. St. Cyril of Jerusalem explicitly states it in his “Catecheses” from 4th century http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/495/Jerusalem_Catecheses_12_24_Cyril_of_Jerusalem.html St. Justin Martyr explicity states it in his “Apologia” which I already cited above. And for the “Apostolic Stamp” which you require, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23 says “I received OF THE LORD (this was not written but received) that which I HANDED ON TO YOU (this was also apparently a verbal teaching before he wrote this letter),” and he goes on to repeat the words of Christ and affirm in verse 29 the actual reality of Christ’s Body.
De Maria,
I’m trying to read your lips and it doesn’t make sense. Not all Roman Catholic doctrine is in Scripture.
“Sacred Tradition” is not the same as Scripture. Correct?
aahill,
Paul had direct contact with Christ and also knew the apostles. There were different opinions in the early church on the meaning of the Lord’s supper.
There are several problems with Jesus becoming bread and wine starting at the Lord’s supper.
De Maria,
I agree with Meyu on this one: the canon of Scripture is a doctrine about Scripture not found in Scripture. It could have been: one of the Apostles could have written a Divinely-inspired Table of Contents. But instead, in the Providence of God, the infallible canon of Scripture is created through the Church outside of any Book of Scripture.
Meyu,
While I agree with your point to De Maria, it seems to disprove the idea that all Apostolic doctrines come from Scripture. The Apostles created the canon of Scripture, but didn’t write anything saying what it was: it was discerned by the early Church.
Also, you’re absolutely right that there “are several problems with Jesus becoming bread and wine starting at the Lord’s supper.” That’s not what we believe at all.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Would you agree that the only teachings we have from the apostles is found only in the NT? If yes, then would it not also follow from this that the only doctrines that could be considered apostolic would have to be what the apostles taught or mentions in the NT? Or to put it negatively, if a doctrine is not found in the NT then it cannot be said to be apostolic.
If Jesus is in the bread and wine via transubstantiation at the mass, is the bread and wine considered God?
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 9:58 AM
De Maria,
I’m trying to read your lips and it doesn’t make sense. Not all Roman Catholic doctrine is in Scripture.
Yes, it is. Implied or explicit.
“Sacred Tradition” is not the same as Scripture. Correct?
it is the basis of the New Testament and the contains the knowledge of He who fulfilled the Old.
Hello Joe,
Joe HeschmeyerApril 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM
De Maria,
I agree with Meyu on this one: the canon of Scripture is a doctrine about Scripture not found in Scripture. It could have been: one of the Apostles could have written a Divinely-inspired Table of Contents. But instead, in the Providence of God, the infallible canon of Scripture is created through the Church outside of any Book of Scripture.
Really? It is not set out in a Table of Contents. But if you open the Catholic Bible, you can write the Table of Contents, can’t you? So tell me, in what sense is the Canon of Scripture NOT taught in Scripture?
And, guess what, it is completely in line with Catholic Tradition because it is Catholic Tradition.
While I agree with your point to De Maria, it seems to disprove the idea that all Apostolic doctrines come from Scripture. The Apostles created the canon of Scripture, but didn’t write anything saying what it was: it was discerned by the early Church.
Also, you’re absolutely right that there “are several problems with Jesus becoming bread and wine starting at the Lord’s supper.” That’s not what we believe at all.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Augustine said:
The position held by St. Augustine is at present the subject of a spirited controversy, since the adversaries of the Church rather confidently maintain that he favored their side of the question in that he was an out-and-out “Symbolist”. In the opinion of Loofs (“Dogmengeschichte”, 4th ed., Halle, 1906, p. 409), St. Augustine never gives, the “reception of the true Body and Blood of Christ” a thought; and this view Ad. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1897, III, 148) emphasizes when he declares that St. Augustine “undoubtedly was one in this respect with the so-called pre-Reformation and with Zwingli”. Against this rather hasty conclusion Catholics first of all advance the undoubted fact that Augustine demanded that Divine worship should be rendered to the Eucharistic Flesh (Enarration on Psalm 33, no. 1), and declared that at the Last Supper “Christ held and carried Himself in His own hands” (Enarration on Psalm 98, no. 9).
So, perhaps you could explain your last comment.
Sincerely,
De Maria
> There were different opinions in the early church on the meaning of the Lord’s supper.
Meyu, you made this assertion on the other thread and I challenged you on it, but all you did was provide a link to a Wikipedia entry talking about the different understandings of the Eucharist in Protestant Traditions founded in 16th Century, not the Early Church. Joe has already provided for you a link to the writings on the Fathers on the Eucharist in the early centuries.
Please either present some evidence or retract the above statement.
Here is a good article on the history of the Lord Supper:http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx114.htm
I don’t really see what you’re pointing to in this article (which could certainly be critiqued in its own right).
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Joe,
Would you agree that the only teachings we have from the apostles is found only in the NT? If yes, then would it not also follow from this that the only doctrines that could be considered apostolic would have to be what the apostles taught or mentions in the NT? Or to put it negatively, if a doctrine is not found in the NT then it cannot be said to be apostolic.
If Jesus is in the bread and wine via transubstantiation at the mass, is the bread and wine considered God?
There is no bread and wine in the transubstantiated Eucharist. Please study the Catholic Doctrine.
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM
aahill,
Paul had direct contact with Christ and also knew the apostles. There were different opinions in the early church on the meaning of the Lord’s supper.
There are several problems with Jesus becoming bread and wine starting at the Lord’s supper.
You say things like this but you never provide any evidence. What different meanings are you speaking of?
You wrote–“There is no bread and wine in the transubstantiated Eucharist.” If this is not true, then what are you eating and drinking at mass?
The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So you are a cannibal because that would mean you are eating human flesh.
Do you object to the Scripture?
John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Call me what you will, I obey Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Meyu,
1) The charge of cannibalism is one that the pagans threw at us in the earliest days of the Church. This is further confirmation that the early Church believed what we believe, rather than what you believe.
2) The charge itself is false, as Augustine explained.
3) You claimed earlier that the earliest Christians held a diversity of views on the Eucharist. I think if you read the writings of the earliest Christians, you’ll see that this isn’t true. For that matter, if you had read the links I sent you on the subject earlier, you would know this.
4) The Apostle John has a student, Ignatius of Antioch, who laid out belief that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Incarnate Lord as a test for whether someone is in communion with the Church. And that was prior to 110 A.D., decades before these same early Christians coin the term “Trinity,” or sort of the canon of Scripture.
I.X.,
Joe
I didn’t say that I believe that the eating of the Lord’s supper is cannibalism but your beliefs lead to that conclusion. If you claim to literally be eating the flesh of Christ at communion then it is cannibalism.
The symbolic-metaphorical view avoids this conclusion.
Did the early church make a dogmatic official definition on the meaning of the Lord’s supper in the 1st 5 centuries?
De Maria,
Sorry but John 6 is not about the Lord’s supper.
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 3:38 PM
De Maria,
Sorry but John 6 is not about the Lord’s supper.
It is Jesus explaining the foundations of the Last Supper. That is why He said:
John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 3:33 PM
I didn’t say that I believe that the eating of the Lord’s supper is cannibalism but your beliefs lead to that conclusion. If you claim to literally be eating the flesh of Christ at communion then it is cannibalism.
Find the definition of cannibalism in the dictionary. See if it mentions eating the flesh of Jesus Christ in the appearance of bread.
You’re problem is that you use any excuse to disobey Christ. Christ told us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, we obey.
You refuse to obey.
The symbolic-metaphorical view avoids this conclusion.
The Protestant symbolic-metaphorical view contradicts the Word of God.
Did the early church make a dogmatic official definition on the meaning of the Lord’s supper in the 1st 5 centuries?
They accepted the Word of God as passed down in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, including the New Testament.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Meyu,
Perhaps you could expound upon your symbolic-metaphorical view and we can compare it to the Catholic “efficacious sign” viewpoint and see which explains the Scripture more coherently.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Meyu,
Re-read my 1 and 2 from my last comment. I provide the links you need to understand: the early Christians believed the same thing about the Eucharist that we do, and the pagans raised the same objection you raised. Augustine (and other early Christians) answered the objection.
Out of curiousity, do you consider breast feeding cannibalism? Why or why not?
And the claim that John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper is totally off-base. John even signals the connection by informing us that “the time for Passover was near.” In other words, it takes place one year prior to the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, and is a parallel to it.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Here is what church historian Philip Schaff says about the Lord’s supper:
“The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.”
and:
“In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.703 The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar…”
Who is that fella and why should we hold his opinion above the Teaching of Scripture?
Meyu,
Since you’re back, could you expound on the symbolic-metaphorical view, from Scripture? Then we can compare doctrines.
Joe,
You wrote–“And the claim that John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper is totally off-base. John even signals the connection by informing us that “the time for Passover was near.” Where in John 6 does it mention the “the time for Passover was near”?
John 6 mention eternal life a number of times. Where do any of the supper accounts mention eternal life? You would think that if John 6 is about the supper there would be some mention of eternal life given to those who eat it.
The symbolic-metaphorical view takes Christ words metaphorically-symbolically on the supper in the same way the OT Jews understood the significance of the Passover which was done in memory of God delivering the people from the bondage of the Egyptians to freedom. Christ in a similar way was to deliver His people from the bondage of sin and death via the cross and the resurrection. Every time we take the Lord’s supper we are to remember what Christ did for us on the cross and in His resurrection.
Philip Schaff is a theologian and church historian. He is only recording what was true about the Lord’s supper in this period. If you think he is lying then bring forth some counter historical facts.
Where is Schaff’s unbiased evidence for his claims? Why not try Darwell Stone’s A History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist. He’s not even a Catholic.
And by the way, verse 4 of Jn 6 refers us to it being Passover time.
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 7:35 PM
The symbolic-metaphorical view takes Christ words metaphorically-symbolically on the supper in the same way the OT Jews understood the significance of the Passover which was done in memory of God delivering the people from the bondage of the Egyptians to freedom.
Doesn’t the NT have better promises than the OT? Yet your doctrine leads you to equate the two.
Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Christ in a similar way was to deliver His people from the bondage of sin and death via the cross and the resurrection. Every time we take the Lord’s supper we are to remember what Christ did for us on the cross and in His resurrection.
In the OT, an animal, a passover lamb is sacrificed and eaten. And God passed over all who participated in the first Passover.
In the NT, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God is sacrificed and eaten. This is why Jesus said:
Matthew 26:26-28
King James Version (KJV)
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
And God saves all who participate in the Christian Passover.
meyuApril 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM
Philip Schaff is a theologian and church historian. He is only recording what was true about the Lord’s supper in this period. If you think he is lying then bring forth some counter historical facts.
Why should I believe him above Scripture?
Philip Schaff was a good (Protestant) church historian. If you read his works on the early Church, you will come away with the inescapable feeling that the early Church looked very Catholic. As for his Eucharistic theology, I think he gets this point wrong. Augustine absolutely doesn’t take a merely “spiritualistic” theory of the Eucharist, although he is quick to point out the symbolism of the Sacramental actions. Meyu, if you read the link I’ve twice urged you to read, you would hear Augustine in his own words defending Catholic Eucharistic theology. And despite my great respect for Schaff, I think Augustine knows Augustine’s theology better than Schaff knows Augustine’s theology.
Augustine is a world apart from either Ratramnus or Berengar. O’Connor shows this ably in The Hidden Manna, if you want an appeal to experts.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
I read your quote of Augustine and didn’t see anything about the Lord’s supper. Do you think Schaff was lying about there being different views and that the church in the 1st 3 centuries did not dogmatically define it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is generally quite as difficult to help a Protestant recognize that Christ is not re-sacrificed in the Mass, or that sola scriptura is self-refuting, as it is to help a Muslim recognize that the Trinity is not polytheistic, and for the same reason.
Meyu,
In what sense do you claim to follow Scripture? When asked to produce evidence for Sola Scriptura, you produce nothing from Scripture. When asked to explain the metaphorical-symbolical doctrine, you produce nothing from Scripture. So, in what sense do you claim to follow Scripture? In your dreams?
Isn’t the background of the Lord’s supper the Passover?
Yes. But in the Old Testament Passover, the Passover lamb is truly eaten. So, I repeat, in what sense do you claim to follow Scripture?
i.e. Christ is our Passover, therefore He is truly eaten.
When they ate the Passover in the OT, was it alive or dead at the time they ate it? Did God ever say that He Himself was literally in the lamb and therefore eating Him?
ImeyuApril 12, 2013 at 9:44 AM
When they ate the Passover in the OT, was it alive or dead at the time they ate it?
Dead.
What does the separation of Body and Blood symbolize?
Did God ever say that He Himself was literally in the lamb and therefore eating Him?
Not in the Old Testament. But graphically and explicitly in the New (John 6:53; Matthew 26:25-27).
Does God say that He will provide the Lamb for the Sacrifice? Gen 22:8
Is Jesus the Lamb of God? John 1:29
Is Christ our Passover? 1 Cor 5:7
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is grounded on the nature of Scripture itself being inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is God speaking to us and so that makes it the highest authority. All other authorities are to be in subjection to the Scripture because only the scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only the scripture is God-breathed. Nothing else is.
Scripture says that many things are God breathed. We can begin with mankind in Genesis 2. Then, we find that Jesus, God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, breathed the Holy Spirit into His Apostles, His Church (John 20:21-23).
They, then passed down His Traditions without error. So much so, that Scripture says the Church teaches the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10) and that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3;15).
So, Scripture itself teaches that other things are also God breathed and that the Teaching of the Church is God breathed and inerrant since it is the Wisdom of God. In addition, the New Testament is the Teaching of the Church since it is the Church which wrote it without error after being inspired of the Holy Spirit to do so.
Of course, if you can provide an explicit teaching in Scripture saying that Scripture ALONE is God breathed and inerrant, we’ll have to believe you.
Do you have an explicit teaching from Scripture, chapter and verse?
It occurs to me that the Catholic Church calls the New Testament an example of the process of “living Tradition” (CCC#83). Therefore, the NT is proof that Tradition is inspired-inerrant.
Jesus did breathe onto His disciples. It was not the church that He breathed onto. The disciples and the church are not the same things. Only the Scripture is inspired and inerrant. The Scripture is the Word of God, not the church. The church can err and has done so (Acts 20:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:1). Even Peter erred and was rebuked by Paul in Galatians.
The church did not write the Scripture but individuals did. Those individuals are never said to be the church nor did the leadership of the church at anytime tell or command these individuals to write. “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:21
Since we both know that the Scripture is inspired-inerrant what else is also inspired-inerrant? Does your church claim to be inspired-inerrant? If so, what official document by your church claims this? If you don’t have such an official document then your church does not claim to be inspired-inerrant.
If there is nothing else that is inspired-inerrant then that means the Scripture alone is.
What is a “living Tradition”? Do you have examples of them and are they inspired-inerrant?
Meyu,
how is it that you ask so many questions and expect us to answer, but you answer no question which is asked of you? Now, please answer. Do you have an explicit teaching from Scripture saying that Scripture ALONE is inspired-inerrant?
Because, if you don’t, you must accept the implied Teaching from Scripture that Church Teaching is also inspired-inerrant.
I answered it. Unless you can produce another source that is inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is, then the Scripture “alone” i.e. sola is correct and true. To show that this is incorrect you need to produce another source that is also inspired-inerrant. So far you have not done that. No one has nor can they because only the Scripture qualifies as being inspired-inerrant.
Are the Marian dogmas Traditions? If so, where does the Lord God call these dogmas inspired-inerrant?
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Jesus did breathe onto His disciples. It was not the church that He breathed onto. The disciples and the church are not the same things.
Yes, they are. The disciples are the body of Christ and comprise the Church.
Only the Scripture is inspired and inerrant.
Does Scripture say that, yes or no? If yes, where? Scripture and verse please.
The Scripture is the Word of God, not the church.
But the Church teaches the Word of God (Eph 3:10) and does so without error, otherwise it would not be called the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
The church can err and has done so (Acts 20:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:1).
Acts 20:28-30 does not say that the Church erred. Read it:
King James Version (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
2 Peter 2:1 doesn’t say the Church erred either. Read it also:
King James Version (KJV)
2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Even Peter erred and was rebuked by Paul in Galatians.
St. Peter did not err. St. Paul erred in his rebuke of St. Peter since St. Peter behaved exactly as St. Paul. Read it:
1 Corinthians 8:11-13
King James Version (KJV)
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Therefore, St. Paul withdraws in order not to cause his brethren to sin. This is exactly what St. Peter did and St. Paul reprimanded him for it. This shows the primacy of Peter’s patience and understanding. The man who has been given the power of life or death by Jesus Christ (see Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira), patiently ignored St. Paul’s rebuke in order not to make him look bad before the Gentiles.
Meyu said:
The church did not write the Scripture but individuals did.
Individual members of the Church.
Those individuals are never said to be the church
Yes they are:
Acts 14:27
And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
nor did the leadership of the church at anytime tell or command these individuals to write. “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:21
1. That says that Prophets SPOKE, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sort of shoots your claim out of the water. The one about Scripture ALONE being inspired-inerrant.
2. These holy men and prophets which SPOKE and then WROTE the Scriptures, comprise the Church.
Since we both know that the Scripture is inspired-inerrant what else is also inspired-inerrant?
The Scripture says that Church Teaching is inspired inerrant.
Does your church claim to be inspired-inerrant?
She claims infallibility. And it is by this grace that she wrote the New Testament without error.
If so, what official document by your church claims this?
The New Testament.
If you don’t have such an official document then your church does not claim to be inspired-inerrant.
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
If there is nothing else that is inspired-inerrant then that means the Scripture alone is.
Show me that explicit teaching from Scripture. Otherwise, you are stuck with the fact that Scripture teaches that Church Teaching is the Wisdom of God and therefore inspired-inerrant.
What is a “living Tradition”? Do you have examples of them and are they inspired-inerrant?
You can try to derail the question as much as you like. But you have failed to produce the chapter and verse which says that the Scripture ALONE is inspired-inerrant. Whereas, Scripture shows that the Teaching of the Church is without error and the Word of God:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, ….
Hebrews 13:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:….
You have nothing but try to persuade us by constantly repeating your error. That is cult like behavior. The Nazis used it to great effect. They simply repeated lies until people began to believe them simply because that was all they remembered.
Focus on the question. Where does Scripture say, as you claim, that Scripture ALONE is God breathed and inerrant? If Scripture doesn’t say this, then how does your claim hold any water?
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 10:55 AM
I answered it.
No you haven’t.
Unless you can produce another source that is inspired-inerrant as the Scripture is, then the Scripture “alone” i.e. sola is correct and true.
1. I have proved that Scripture teaches that the Teaching of the Church is the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10) and the Word of God (1 Thess 2:13; Heb 13:7), by definition then, inspired and inerrant.
2. you have not produced any verse from Scripture which says that the Scripture ALONE is inspired and inerrant.
To show that this is incorrect you need to produce another source that is also inspired-inerrant.
I have done so.
So far you have not done that. No one has nor can they because only the Scripture qualifies as being inspired-inerrant.
Scripture says otherwise. Or don’t you believe Scripture?
Are the Marian dogmas Traditions? If so, where does the Lord God call these dogmas inspired-inerrant?
It is the Teaching of the Church which is called the Wisdom of God and the Word of God. Unless you claim that the Wisdom of God and the Word of God are not inspired by God or unless you claim that the Wisdom of God and the Word of God contain error, you must accept Scripture teaches that the Teaching of the Church is also inspired-inerrant.
Meyu,
Let me make sure that I’m grasping your argument correctly:
a) 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says that we’re supposed to follow Scripture and Tradition.
b) You don’t know what these other Traditions are.
c) Therefore, you conclude that they don’t exist?
Is that a fair summary of the argument? If not, what am I missing? And if so, couldn’t we likewise conclude that the feeding of the five thousand didn’t occur, unless we know the names of each of the thousands of people present?
I.X.,
Joe
Yes. We don’t know what the Traditions are that Paul spoke of because we have no record of them. Do you know specifically what they were? If yes, then give me some examples and how you know.
You are reading 2 Thess 2:15 wrong. Here’s what it says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions
which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
So, let’s break it down.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast,
First he admonishes them not to fall away.
and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Then he instructs them that they will stand fast if they hold on to the Traditions.
1. Note that the Traditions are conveyed both by verbal communication and in writing.
2. Note also that it is one set of Traditions conveyed in two methods.
which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Note that this does not say, “some by word and others by epistle.” But it says that they have been taught all the Traditions by word or epistle. You are reading into it the self serving idea that that there are more Traditons than there are Scriptures. But in fact, there is one set of Traditions which is taught verbally or in writing.
The Church does not claim that there are any separate Traditions which are passed down apart from Scripture. It is you making that claim therefore it is you who must provide the evidence of such.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Meyu,
Answer the question. Where does Scripture say that Scripture ALONE is inspired-inerrant?
It doesn’t and it does not need to since the church recognizes via the Spirit that Scripture is inspired-inerrant.
Where does your church officially call its teachings on Mary for example inspired and inerrant?
BTW- the Marian dogmas are in error since they contradict Scripture on a number of points.
Which points?
Meyu,
I don’t follow your logic at all. You (finally!) admitted that sola Scriptura isn’t a doctrine taught in Scripture, but now claim (contrary to the principles of sola Scriptura) that this is unnecessary, since “the church recognizes via the Spirit that Scripture is inspired-inerrant.”
By that same token, the Church recognizes via the Spirit that the Book of Luke is inspired and inerrant. Does that mean that the Book of Luke ALONE is inspired and inerrant?
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Where in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does it say it must have some statement in Scripture that it alone is inerrant and inspired? We already know the ancient Jews were able to recognize what Scripture was without a church. Peter tells equates Paul’s letters (not oral teachings) as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16
The recognition of a church that Luke is inspired-inerrant does not make Luke inspired-inerrant. It only means they recognized it as such.
Are the Marian dogmas considered inspired-inerrant officially by your church?
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 1:58 PM
Joe,
Where in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does it say it must have some statement in Scripture that it alone is inerrant and inspired?….
Funny you should say that. Since you claim that this doctrine exists, it is your burden to provide the definition of the doctrine. Where is your official definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Would you provide it please. Then we can compare to Scripture to see if it is, in fact, a valid doctrine.
We already know the ancient Jews were able to recognize what Scripture was without a church.
But not without an authority. Remember, the Pharisees sat on Moses seat.
Peter tells equates Paul’s letters (not oral teachings) as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16
St. Peter is the Shepherd which Jesus Christ appointed over His Church.
The recognition of a church that Luke is inspired-inerrant does not make Luke inspired-inerrant. It only means they recognized it as such.
Hm? What’s the point there? Are you claiming that the Gospel of Luke is not inspired-inerrant?
Are the Marian dogmas considered inspired-inerrant officially by your church?
Is the Wisdom of God inspired-inerrant? Scripture says that Church Teaching is the Wisdom of God. Marian dogmas are Church Teaching. Ipso-facto, Marian Dogmas are inspired-inerrant because they are Church Teaching and therefore the Wisdom of God.
I’ve been monitoring this thread with astonishment as to the level of evasiveness.
Meyu, at the most basic level of logic and search for truth, it would seem that if Sola Scripture was true then the Scripture would say so.
The request for a direct reference seems reasonable, especially since you are so insistent on it in many other areas of discussion. It also seems to me that given the lack of such a Scriptural statement, it would be reasonable to question the fundamental claim of SS.
After all, we are seeking the truth.
Blessings to all.
Well said.
Unknown,
Just don’t come in and leave. I asked from Joe and company to give me some specific examples of the traditions that Paul spoke of in 2 Thes 2:15 and what else Jesus said and did that was not written down and I have yet to see one example of it. Not one. This should be astonishing to you as it is to me.
Do you doubt that the Scripture is inspired-inerrant? I hope not. Now please tell me where the RCC says officially that the Marian dogmas are inspired and inerrant. Don’t need to search to far. They don’t. If they did, RC’s here would have posted it by now. Maybe you can show me I’m wrong because the others have yet to do so.
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Unknown,
Just don’t come in and leave. I asked from Joe and company to give me some specific examples of the traditions that Paul spoke of in 2 Thes 2:15 and what else Jesus said and did that was not written down and I have yet to see one example of it. Not one. This should be astonishing to you as it is to me.
Your question was answered meyu. None.
Do you doubt that the Scripture is inspired-inerrant? I hope not.
No one does. But Scripture says that Church Teaching is also inspired-inerrant. Do you deny that the Wisdom of God is inspired-inerrant? Here is what the Scripture says:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Now please tell me where the RCC says officially that the Marian dogmas are inspired and inerrant.
Marian Dogma is Church Teaching. And Church Teaching is the Wisdom of God. Therefore it says so in the New Testament Scriptures, which, by the way, are also the Teaching of the Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Don’t need to search to far. They don’t. If they did, RC’s here would have posted it by now. Maybe you can show me I’m wrong because the others have yet to do so.
I’ve posted it repeatedly. You simply choose to ignore it.
One more thing. Inspired-inerrant doesn’t mean what you seem to think.
The terminology is a manner of speaking which assumes that you know that “holy men were inspired of God to speak and to write down the prophecy of God without error.” That means that the Scriptures were never alone. First and foremost, men of the Church were inspired and they then transmitted, without error, the Revelation of God.
Whereas, you seem to think that the Scriptures somehow dropped out of heaven into men’s laps.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You claim-“One more thing. Inspired-inerrant doesn’t mean what you seem to think.
The terminology is a manner of speaking which assumes that you know that “holy men were inspired of God to speak and to write down the prophecy of God without error.” That means that the Scriptures were never alone. First and foremost, men of the Church were inspired and they then transmitted, without error, the Revelation of God.”
Are you claiming this for your doctrines that you consider inspired-inerrant? Were the Marian dogmas “transmitted, without error, the Revelation of God”?
I repeat, you, menu, don’t know what inspired-inerrant means. If you do, please explain the term, from Scripture.
Meyu,
I have to agree with Unknown. You’re being shifty and evasive in some of your responses. You’ve asked a huge number of leading questions, on scores of Catholic doctrines (despite my best attempts to rein the conversation in, in order to have more depth than breadth), yet you’ve refused to answer even simple, direct questions. At first, I thought you were just overlooking this, yet both Restless Pilgrim and I have called your attention to this fact several times, only to have our comments ignored entirely.
Perhaps this is just part of the phenomenon of Internet communication: it permits you to ask a whole series of questions without waiting for responses, and enables you to ignore tough questions in a way that would be much more obviously rude in face-to-face conversation. But at least realize that you look like you’re being evasive. And dishonesty of any stripe has no place in Christian apologetics.
At this point, perhaps I should mention that I don’t believe you when you say that you find it “astonishing” that nobody took the bait on your loaded question. Once again, you started a topic (sola Scriptura and the canon of Scripture), began losing it badly, and tried desperately to change the subject (this time, to the Marian doctrines). You’ve done this several times already, and it’s tiring, for those of us who take your questions seriously enough to respond to.
Are there Catholic answers to these questions? Absolutely. I’ve written on them several times, and there are tags on the bottom of the page if you really want to learn. But you seem incapable or unwilling to respond to our answers to the questions that you are bringing up. That’s worth noting here: it’s not like we’re ambushing you. You’re raising the topics, only to find (time and time again) that the Catholic view is stronger than you realized, and that you’re unable to defend the Protestant view.
Finally, I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here. Is it to share your own faith? Are you here to evangelize us, and make us Protestants? You seemingly suggested earlier that you aren’t. What, then? To learn about Catholicism, or about specific issues on which we disagree (like the Eucharist, papacy, Atonement, justification, sola Scriptura, canon of Scripture, Marian doctrines, etc.)? If you’re interested in learning, why have you been so resistant to reading links we’re sending you, and so quick to pontificate on doctrines you’re not well-versed in?
For my part, at least, I’m trying to educate and evangelize you, in the hopes that you’ll enter more fully into the Church founded by Jesus Christ. In the process, I would love to learn more about who you are, and what you believe. And I don’t want to proselytize by beating you over the head with the truth, either. I would rather help lead you, via comments and questions, to see both the weaknesses in the views you held previously, and the strength of the Catholic case.
But that conversation can’t process very productively if you’re too skittish to answer questions, and keep changing the channel, so to speak. Instead, we end up with a couple dozen abortive topics, relatively little progress actually made, and several hours expended. I’m more than happy to dive more fully into the issues that you’ve raised, but I suspect that you need to be less evasive in this dialogue, if it’s to bear the fruit the Holy Spirit wills for it to bear.
I.X.,
Joe
And just so you can’t accuse me of leaving a question hanging,
1) Yes, there are binding Apostolic doctrines that we can know outside of the internal content of Scripture. For example ,the canon of Scripture is composed of what can be considered 74 Traditions:
1-73: That each of the 73 Books is inspired; and
74: That these 73 are the only inspired Books.
A handful of the Books are self-attesting, but as you stated above, we know of their inspiration because of the Church, not their internal content.
As stated above, this is the recognition, not the creation, of Truth: “The Church doesn’t create Truth, She recognizes It. So the Church simply affirmed the canon of Scripture which most people knew to be true once a vocal minority began to question it. Likewise, She did the same thing with the Trinity, once non-Trinitarian heresies became a threat. In both cases, the underlying belief (the canon of Scripture and the Trinity) were widely believed before the formal definition. And significantly, that canon of Scripture was the Catholic one.”
2) I’m not positive what you mean when you ask if the Marian doctrines are inspired-inerrant. They’re doctrines, not Books. Is the doctrine of the Trinity inspired-inerrant? What does inspired mean in that context?
3) The Marian doctrines are Apostolic in origin, and absolutely binding. We believe in them with the same certitude of faith that we believe in all de fide doctrines, from the doctrine of the Trinity on down.
Hopefully, that answers your question. That said, let’s shelve this issue for now until you answer the questions you’ve been avoiding on sola Scriptura.
I.X.,
Joe
Meyu,
Joe asked:
Finally, I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here. Is it to share your own faith? Are you here to evangelize us, and make us Protestants?….
I think that’s a good question and pertinent. You’ve said that you consider Scripture the highest authority. But your behavior here belies that idea. Because, we have given you the Scripture upon which we base our beliefs. Yet, you want us to take your word above Scripture.
Are you a greater authority than Scripture, menu?
Joe,
The OT apocrypha is a separate debate. I’m asking in regards to the Marian dogmas if they are inspired-inerrant like the gospel of Mark. Does your church consider themselves as such?
You are being dishonest when you claim that these doctrines are apostolic in origin. There is nothing in Scripture about her being immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven.
Meyu,
You’re just asking the same questions about the Marian doctrines over again (only now, with name-calling!), after I (a) answered them, and (b) asked that we shelve this issue for now until you answer the questions you’ve been avoiding on sola Scriptura.
I’m not going to waste hours more talking to you if you won’t offer even a modicum of decorum. You answered nothing from the last two comments I posted, and proceeded to jump on to the Marian doctrines when I ask that you wait. You completely ignored, once again, all of my questions, while I’m answering yours. What gives? Why this evasiveness? Are you just trolling at this point?
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Claims are being made about your church’s traditions being equal with scripture and I’m asking for clarification. Not getting it.
Part of this discussion on sola scriptura with Roman Catholics will involve the traditions of your church. It’s the traditions of your church that are assumed to be equal with scripture. If they are then sola scriptura is false.
You brought up in part the apochpyra. What does that have to do with sola scriptura? What questions on sola scriptura have I not answered?
WWhat part did the apostles have in determining the New Testament Canon?
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM
It doesn’t
Thank you. Now, what does this mean?
Ephesians 3:10 (RSV)
10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
As I read it, it says that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. I conclude that the Wisdom of God must be inspired-inerrant. What do you think?
and it does not need to since the church recognizes via the Spirit that Scripture is inspired-inerrant.
That is true. But not the Scripture ALONE. That is the key word you left out.
Where does your church officially call its teachings on Mary for example inspired and inerrant?
In Scripture. All Church Teaching is the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10) and therefore inspired and inerrant. That includes the Teachings on Mary.
How does your church officially interpret Ephesians 3:10? I know what you think it means but that does not mean its the official interpretation of your church. That’s why I need to see it so that I’m not having to depend on your private interpretation alone. It would help us both in that I can see if your interpretation squares with your church’s.
Ephesians 3:10 is part of the official Sacred Scripture of the Catholic Church. Trent says:
It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
They are the following:….
Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians,…..
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm
And the entire Scriptures are considered the Word of God:
CCC102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.
The Church also teaches that Sacred Tradition is the Word of God (CCC#97). Therefore I have interpreted Eph 3:10 according to the instructions of the Catholic Church (CCC113.2).
We both know what the Word of God is and its found only in the Bible. Trent concurs. Now, where does it say that the Marian dogmas are considered the Word of God in what Trent says? Are not the Marian dogmas considered “Tradition”?
Eph 3:10 does not say “that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. I conclude that the Wisdom of God must be inspired-inerrant.” but that the “wisdom of God might be now be made known to the church”. This does not mean that the church has always taught the wisdom of God which is found in Scripture alone. The church is capable of error as I have demonstrated above. That’s why we must compare all doctrines by the Scripture and those doctrines that are not in harmony with the Scripture do not have the wisdom of God.
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 2:50 PM
We both know
Have you got a mouse in your pocket?
what the Word of God is and its found only in the Bible.
The Word of God is transmitted in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
Trent concurs.
That the Word of God is contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
Now, where does it say that the Marian dogmas are considered the Word of God in what Trent says? Are not the Marian dogmas considered “Tradition”?
Yes. Tradition is the Teaching of the Church. And Eph 3:10 says that the Teaching of the Church is the Wisdom of God.
You do know that Tradition means Teaching, do you not. Here are two Protestant bibles and their interpretation of the word, paradosis.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
New International Version (NIV)
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Eph 3:10 does not say “that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. I conclude that the Wisdom of God must be inspired-inerrant.” but that the “wisdom of God might be now be made known to the church”.
Huh? No wonder you have trouble with Scripture:
Ephesians 3:10 (RSV)
10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
Where does that say, “to the church”?
This does not mean that the church has always taught the wisdom of God which is found in Scripture alone.
Yes, it does. You simply don’t like that meaning therefore you have twisted the words which are actually stated in that verse.
The church is capable of error as I have demonstrated above.
No you haven’t. You posted verses which had nothing to do with error by the Church.
That’s why we must compare all doctrines by the Scripture and those doctrines that are not in harmony with the Scripture do not have the wisdom of God.
That is precisely what we are doing and so far, the Protestant doctrines you have provided fall miserably short of the Scriptures. They are totally absent from the Scriptures as has been shown.
Please give me an example of Sacred tradition that is not in Scripture. Can you do that?
As I said, all of Sacred Tradition is in Scripture implied or explicit. Therefore, if you believe that there is a Tradition missing from Scripture, you ought to prove it. Not I.
So what you are saying is that all of sacred tradition is found in Scripture alone. Got it.
Meyu,
He has said that to you multiple times. I think he is wrong, for what it is worth.
I.X.,
Joe
I’ll chime in here:
Would you agree that the only teachings we have from the apostles is found only in the NT?
No.
See the Didache.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
The Didache falls into the category of “not inspired, but still good for teaching”. Jesus for instance in the New Testament doesn’t say anything about abortion, but in the Didache, abortion is absolutely forbidden.
If Sola Scriptura were also true, it wouldn’t have come about 1500+ years after Jesus’ Resurrection. The ancietn Church Fathers of the Church never thought about it — They couldn’t have, as for a lot of them there wasn’t an “official” scripture yet. Medieval Christians such as Bede or Aquinas never thought of that concept.
It’s one thing to say: “Here’s something we’ve always believed, now here’s a new term for it.”
ie: Such as “We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” and someone comes along and says: “Why don’t we just call that “The Trinity”?”
and then having something totally new come along that has no basis in historical fact. Such as people coming up with “Sola Scriptura” when even the First Twelve Apostles could never have believed in it as they never had a complete “Scripture” to believe in.
Jesus never gave us a book, or a collection of books for that matter. What he gave us was a Church. The Bible is absolutely dependent on the Church.
The Church came first. The Bible came second.
Without the Church to recognize and authorize the books of the Bible (All of books btw.) we wouldn’t even have had the Bible. If you’re going to say “I believe that Matthew Mark Luke and John are inspire books.” and then turn around and say “The organization (The Catholic Church) that preserved, copied those books the last 2000 years, and also recognized those books as inspired got it all wrong.” Is really a strange position to take.
Also for the record:
Viva Papa Franciscus! Ut eius humilitas eos compellere infideles ad genua!
Long live Pope Francis! May his humility force the unbelievers to their knees!
😀
That’s a great last line–“Long live Pope Francis! May his humility force the unbelievers to their knees!” What an apologetic!
Meyu,
before it gets lost in the milieu, I want to remind you that I asked you to provide the official doctrine of Sola Scriptura in order that we may see what it actually entails.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I already gave it and you already know but you deny it. I have yet to see something from you that says officially from your church that the Marian dogmas are said to be inspired-inerrant. Then I will know what else your church considers inspired-inerrant. So far it seems your church considers the scripture alone to be inspired-inerrant.
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 4:29 PM
I already gave it and you already know but you deny it.
Really? Where?
I have yet to see something from you that says officially from your church that the Marian dogmas are said to be inspired-inerrant. Then I will know what else your church considers inspired-inerrant. So far it seems your church considers the scripture alone to be inspired-inerrant.
What does inspired-inerrant mean to you?
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is grounded on the nature of Scripture itself being inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is God speaking to us and so that makes it the highest authority. All other authorities are to be in subjection to the Scripture because only the scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scripture is God-breathed. Nothing else is.
“Inspiration means that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html
“The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”http://www.challies.com/bible/what-does-inerrant-mean
meyuApril 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is grounded on the nature of Scripture itself being inspired-inerrant Word of God.
Where is the official definition of that doctrine?
It is God speaking to us and so that makes it the highest authority.
God also speaks to us through His Church:
1 Corinthians 4:1
King James Version
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
All other authorities are to be in subjection to the Scripture because only the scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scripture is God-breathed. Nothing else is.
Scripture says we are subject to the Church:
Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
“Inspiration means that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html
God divinely influenced the human authors? So God inspired the human authors, isn’t that right? And that is why the human authors wrote the Scripture without error. But that skips a step, since Scripture says that these humans who were inspired of God, also spoke the Word of God:
2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
“The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”http://www.challies.com/bible/what-does-inerrant-mean
That is Catholic Teaching. But, it also skips the step that God did not breath Bibles out onto the earth. But men were inspired to speak and to write the Word of God. SPEAK AND WRITE. That is the Teaching of the Church in Tradition and Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Our differences is not on the nature of Scripture (except for the OT apocrypha) but on the authority that your church claims to be the final authority even if they must circumvent the Scripture to do so. The fruit of this authority position can be seen in its doctrines that do indeed circumvent the Scripture. The Marian dogmas are a good example of this. So long as Rome refuses to acknowledge the Scripture over her there can never be unity in the church. There is to much invested in system for the leadership to give it up for the cause of Christ.
Meyu,
If you were Jesus and I venerate and adore and love your mother, when I die, will you say to me that I spend to much time with her so you won’t let me enter your kingdom ?,,,,,and as a son how you treat your mother?
Anna,
There is nothing in Scripture in the judgment that has anything to do with your relationship to Mary.
In fact, it does menu,
Rev 12:17 says:
Revelation 12:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
So, those who are Mary’s children have the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. If i’m not mistaken, these are they who will be judged righteous at the Judgment. But correct me if I’m wrong.
I apologize. The Google spellchecker keeps changing your name to menu. I’ve caught it a few times. But several have slipped past me. Sorry.
Our differences is not on the nature of Scripture (except for the OT apocrypha) but on the authority that your church claims to be the final authority even if they must circumvent the Scripture to do so. The fruit of this authority position can be seen in its doctrines that do indeed circumvent the Scripture. The Marian dogmas are a good example of this. So long as Rome refuses to acknowledge the Scripture over her there can never be unity in the church. There is to much invested in system for the leadership to give it up for the cause of Christ.
It is the other way around menu. The Sola Scripturists will not give up their anti-biblical system because their leaders have a whole economic system based on it.
While everyone else (and it’s refreshing to see so many unfamiliar names) has plenty of patience left for meyu, I do not.
Meyu, the Bible does not have authority the way people have authority. You can sleep on it, bang it against your head, and tear out the pages and eat them–it won’t do any good. Even reading it is worthless without understanding it.
I’ll say it once, twice, a thousand times, here and from the rooftops: the authority of Scripture is found in both understanding what it means and applying its principles to your life. It is not found in the text. It is found in what the text means.
Again, its authority is NOT found in the text, but in what the text means.
So if the Devil quotes Psalm 91, or if a Jew quotes Numbers 23, or if Meyu quotes 2 Timothy 3, I don’t care one whit! It damn well might be what the Scripture says, but it’s not what the Scripture means. It doesn’t mean what the Devil wants it to mean, it doesn’t mean what the Jew wants it to mean, and it doesn’t mean what Meyu wants it to mean. We used to say in the Navy that you can want in one hand $#!% in the other hand and see which one fills up first.
And a Scripture can never mean what it never meant.
Daniel,
Let’s test your theory on the authority of the Bible. If someone comes to you and says that its not a sin to commit adultery or to steal and says to you that the Bible is wrong on this who would you believe?
Or if someone says there are other ways to God and that the Bible is wrong when it says “Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Who do you believe?
You also have the problem in knowing what the Bible means because your church has never officially interpreted them. So how would you know what a specific means if your church has never told you what it means?
The authority of the Scriptures comes from God Himself. Its authority does not come from your understanding it nor in applying its principles to your life.
I’ve got a Bible sitting on my desk. I read your post to it and it’s just sitting there. I’ll let you know if it decides to contribute.
That’s great. Don’t just let it sit on your desk collecting dust. Do what the great Augustine did–“Tolle lege! Tolle lege!” “Pick it up and read it. Pick it up and read it.” That’s what children’s voices said to St. Augustine of Hippo when he was in despair ’way back in the late fourth century. The “it” was the Bible. He took the advice, picked up the Sacred Scripture, and started to read Romans 13, 13-14. It changed his life…and ours, too, for that matter.” http://blog.archny.org/faith/?tag=st-augustine-of-hippo
14 Reasons To Read The Bible: (from a RC website–http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2010/11/top-14-reasons-to-read-bible.html)
14 – Because God is the Divine author (2 Tim 3:16).
13 – It teaches us the ways of salvation (2 Tim 3:15).
12 – It helps raise up Godly children. (Deut 6:7).
11 – It helps give good counsel to others (Col 3:16).
10 – It has practical wisdom for everyday life (Psalm 119: 98).
9 – Because God teaches us His will for us through it. (Rom 12:2)
8 – Because the Devil has read it, knows it, and hates it. (Matt 4: 1-11)
7 – It helps fulfill the mission of the Church – to evangelize. (1 Cor 1: 17-25)
6 – It answers life’s biggest questions – “Who am I”, “Why am I here”, “What is life all about”, etc. (John 14: 5-27.
5 – It helps us fight temptations to sin. (Eph 6:17, Matt 4: 1-11)
4 – It tells us the history of God’s people – our heritage in faith. (Acts 7: 2-56)
3 – It is God’s encouragement through the rough times in life (James 1: 2-3).
2 – We cannot know Jesus personally or his plan for our lives without reading the Bible – as St. Jerome said “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”.
1 – Christ is present when we read the Bible (2 Thes 2:13).
All very good. But you have not answered how the Bible will mediate between you and Daniel. Daniel didn’t say not to read the Bible. He said that the Bible is not a sentient being who will get up and voice an objection or make any sort of judgment.
So, please answer the question as posed. Your comment is a mere rabbit trail which is an attempt to draw attention away from the subject at hand.
In history we have many examples of the Church stepping in to judge between parties. And Scripture prescribes how this is done (Matt 18:17). But, you claim this is the role of Scripture. Show us how.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Daniel is being foolish.
My church would apply Matt 18:15-18 in regards to sin: “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Or it could involve what Gal 6:1-5-“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. 5 For each one will bear his own load.”
How did your church step in and “judge between parties” in the priests scandals that are ongoing?
meyuApril 13, 2013 at 6:32 PM
My church would apply Matt 18:15-18 in regards to sin: “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Or it could involve what Gal 6:1-5-“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. 5 For each one will bear his own load.”
We agree upon something. That is, in fact, the Catholic answer.
So, you would bring people to the Church? But then, wouldn’t that be putting the Church above the Scripture?
How did your church step in and “judge between parties” in the priests scandals that are ongoing?
The priests who have been proven guilty have been sanctioned.
To which denomination do you adhere? I’m interested in this Sola Scriptura Church which gives authority to decide doctrinal issues to the Church over the Scripture.
Daniel is asking a perfectly legitimate question. If you claim that Scripture will resolve the issue, I want to see how. But you have admitted that you misspoke and that your church will resolve differences. So, now please explain how you can accept your church having authority over Scripture?
How does following the commands of Scripture mean that I’m putting “the Church above the Scripture?” How does that follow?
If you want an example of putting of a church putting “the Church above the Scripture” then just look at what your church has done with the qualifications of church leadership. Scripture commands that men be married with children. Your church rejects the Scripture and makes celibacy a requirement.
In regards to the scandals your church for the most part has been covering it up. This is an indisputable fact.
A “Sola Scriptura” church will ground its doctrines in Scripture. No church has authority over the Scripture. Some claim to have equal authority but they are false churches.
Meyu,
You’ve already tried this celibacy argument, and it didn’t go well for you. You initially claimed that “The RCC has ignored Scripture by mandating a celibate leadership. Bishops are to be married. See I Tim 3”. Then we showed you the actual Scriptures, and you admitted you were wrong. You even conceded that Christ founded a “physical church” containing “celibate bishops, elders, deacons, pastor-teachers that is built upon the foundation of apostles with Christ being the cornerstone” (although you rejected “celibate leadership that includes priests”).
It briefly looked like we were making genuine progress, even if only on this issue. Now you’re back to square one, claiming that Scripture requires Church leaders to be married, even though this “requirement,” unknown to the early Christians, would have disqualified both Jesus Christ and St. Paul from leading the Church. You’re just going in circles at this point. You make a claim, it gets proven wrong, you wait a while and raise that same claim over again, repeat cycle.
You’re doing the same thing on several other issues, like sola Scriptura. You’re repeating yourself over and over, without taking into account the various Catholic answers you’ve received. You’re not answering our objections or conceding them: you’re largely just ignoring them. As a result, you’re not persuading anyone, nor do you appear to be listening to what anyone else is saying It’s like watching a car spin out when it’s stuck in the snow. You’re not going to move forward that way. You have to examine the slippery underlying foundations.
I.X.,
Joe
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meyu,
All your questions have been answered, you are the only one who haven’t answer all our questions, please read again. I will keep you in my prayer, hope that our Lord will shower you with more grace, so you will see the fullness of truth.
Anna,
What questions have I not answered?
meyuApril 13, 2013 at 10:11 PM
How does following the commands of Scripture mean that I’m putting “the Church above the Scripture?” How does that follow?
That is the Protestant objection when the Catholic Church judges, according to the Scripture, between the disputes of her disciples. Yet, you follow the same procedure. Therefore, you are guilty of the same crime which you accuse the Catholic Church.
If you want an example of putting of a church putting “the Church above the Scripture” then just look at what your church has done with the qualifications of church leadership. Scripture commands that men be married with children. Your church rejects the Scripture and makes celibacy a requirement.
If Scripture made that command, then Jesus, St. Paul, St. John and Sts. Timothy and Titus would be disqualified since they were Bishops of the Church and were not married nor had children.
In addition, Scripture says,
1 Corinthians 7:
King James Version (KJV)
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Thereby proclaiming that God wants single minded devotion to Him. This confirms what Jesus said:
Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
In regards to the scandals your church for the most part has been covering it up. This is an indisputable fact.
Its an indisputable lie which anti-Catholics like yourself are promoting in order cover-up the scandal in your own Protestant denominations. A scandal which dwarfs that which certain wayward Catholics caused but which will remain hidden because Satan does not attack his own:
Meyu said:
The three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in America say they typically receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members.
The figures released to The Associated Press offer a glimpse into what has long been an extremely difficult phenomenon to pin down — the frequency of sex abuse in Protestant congregations…..
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm
A “Sola Scriptura” church will ground its doctrines in Scripture.
That is the illusion to which you have fallen victim. Sola Scripturist ground their doctrine in their own understanding. This saying is an indication. Protestants are prone to say, “You have checked your brain at the door of the Catholic Church.”
That indicates that Protestants are proud. They are proud of their faith which they claim “alone” saves them. Thus pushing Jesus Christ out of their lives since they are self sustaining.
But we are happy to say that we lean not upon our own understanding. Because we believe the Scripture which says:
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Yessir, we accept the authority of the Church which Jesus put on this earth to lead us to heaven:
Hebrews 13:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
No church has authority over the Scripture. Some claim to have equal authority but they are false churches.
You have truly fallen for the lies of your group. The Catholic Church is the servant of the Word of God which is passed down in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Your group has discarded all which Jesus Christ established. Discarding the Church and the Traditions which He taught and commanded the Church to pass down. Then you substituted the lies of your forefathers for the Teaching of Christ and you continue to pass down the errors of the Reformers to this day.
> Do what the great Augustine did…
Wait, would you now commune with the man who believed in the Deuterocanon, Authoritative Tradition, Baptismal Regneration, the Real Presence, Purgatory, Communion of Saints, Apostolic Succession, Mary being ever-virgin…
Is this another case of picking and choosing?
No way to commune with the dead. Augustine was brilliant but he also could hold to false ideas.
So you take either everything a person-institution as truth or you reject all. Which is it?
>No way to commune with the dead.
You seem to have forgotten our earlier conversation. You were quoting Augustine and I asked you, if you had been alive at the time, whether you would have been in communion with Augustine and gone to his Church. You said you would not. I said that was strange then that you quoted him then since you agree on so many, many, many, many points… It would be rather like me quoting Joseph Smith in an attempt to prove a point of Catholic Doctrine.
>Augustine was brilliant but he also could hold to false ideas.
On what subjects do you think he was brilliant? Purgatory? Mary? The Real Presence? Baptism Regeneration? I thought you hadn’t read him?
So you take either everything a person-institution as truth or you reject all. Which is it?
It’s neither I’m afraid. Had you accepted the books I offered to post you, or had you listened to the lecture links I provided, you’d understand the Catholic/Orthodox use of the Fathers better.
We look for “The Consensus Patrum”. For example, when interpreting Jesus’ words about being “born again”, they all refer to Baptism which washes away sin. When they speak of salvation, they speak of the importance of good works. When speaking of the Eucharist, they all speak in sacrificial and real presence terms.
BTW, I’m still waiting for your answer to my question: Where does Clement say that the Father poured out His wrath on the Son?
*DISagree
Joe,
You are wrong. Paul was single but he never uses his marital status as a qualification for church leadership. 1 Timothy 3 is clear what the qualifications are and you know this.
Jesus never commanded celibacy. In fact, Peter the apostle was married. You are being dishonest again in these claims that Jesus or Paul commanded a celibate leadership.
“The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all”bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics” were to”abstain completely from their wives and not to have children. A short time later, in 325, the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine, rejected a ban on priests marrying requested by Spanish clerics. The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.” http://hnn.us/articles/696.html
This shows you are wrong about a celibate leadership not only in the NT but in the early years of the church.
I asked you at meyuApril 12, 2013 at 10:39 PM
“You brought up in part the apochpyra. What does that have to do with sola scriptura? What questions on sola scriptura have I not answered?”
I did not see an answer to these questions anywhere. It seems you are the one guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.
meyuApril 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Joe,
You are wrong. Paul was single but he never uses his marital status as a qualification for church leadership. 1 Timothy 3 is clear what the qualifications are and you know this.
He never uses it to disqualify the leadership either, as is clear when he appoints Sts. Titus and Timothy and when he teaches that the unmarried are more single-minded in their love of God than the married who are divided between God and their wives (or husbands).
Jesus never commanded celibacy.
But He prophesied that in the future, men would give up sexual activity for the sake of the Kingdom.
In fact, Peter the apostle was married. You are being dishonest again in these claims that Jesus or Paul commanded a celibate leadership.
No one, to my knowledge, has said that Jesus commanded a celibate leadership. However, Jesus did give the Church the right to make decisions of any kind and they would be ratified in heaven. And in fact, we see that it was ratified in heaven, for Scripture says:
Revelation 14:4
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
I’m not sure what you and Joe are talking about in the rest of that comment, so I skipped it.
Meyu,
So is your position that marital status shouldn’t be a condition for ordination (“Paul was single but he never uses his marital status as a qualification for church leadership”) or that it should be (“If you want an example of putting of a church putting “the Church above the Scripture” then just look at what your church has done with the qualifications of church leadership. Scripture commands that men be married with children.”)? You can’t have it both ways.
Earlier, you concluded that the early Church included celibate bishops. Now you appear to describe that position as “dishonest.” You seem like you’re just going back and forth, issuing strong denunciations that you have to immediately walk back when you realize that your position would exclude Jesus and Paul from Church leadership, etc. I’m reminded of nothing more than David’s dealings with King Saul.
We don’t seem to be making progress. What progress are you hoping to make, or are you ready to answer that question yet?
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Paul commands that marriage with children qualifies a man for being a bishop. Not celibacy. I also showed that a celibate leadership came centuries later. These are facts.
Meyu,
No, you showed that mandatory celibacy came later (although still pre-Nicea). It was the norm long before that … unless you think a group of married clergy decided to mandate clerical celibacy. There are entire books written on this subject. And obviously, we see clerical celibacy dating back to St. Paul, a fact that you can’t deny.
You now seem to have changed your position (again!). Am to understand that you think celibacy is okay for Church leadership, except if you’re a bishop? By this standard, are you suggesting that Christ was unqualified to be Bishop of His own Church? Or that St. Paul was creating a standard that would exclude St. Paul from being a bishop?
What progress are you hoping to make, or are you ready to answer that question yet?
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
Read what I said about celibacy being mandated in 304. This was the first time. This was the beginning of the celibacy requirement. Before then they could be married with children. The deacon is also to be married.
Jesus nor any of the apostles were not bishops in the sense of being in one place for a long time and limited to a geographical region. The apostles were to advance the gospel in areas where it was not present. Paul goes into new areas and establishes church for others to maintain.
Being celibate is a lot like going to seminary. It’s not a dogmatic condition for ordination, but is a discipline that is commonly employed in the West, and they are both for good reasons.
Does the Church have the authority to insist on going to seminary before ordination–allowing for exceptions?
If the Church does in your opinion, please answer which verse of Scripture gives the Church the authority to do so?
If the Church does not have this authority, please answer where does Scripture forbid making seminary a prerequisite to ordination?
Daniel,
There is no getting around the fact your church has circumvented the command of Scripture on this issue i.e. celibacy. A Roman Catholic married man is disqualified from being a bishop because he is married. No church has the authority to disregard the Scripture.
The Scripture does not address the issue of seminaries.
Any church has true authority when it is following the teachings of Scripture.
Hi Meyu,
meyuApril 14, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Daniel,
There is no getting around the fact your church has circumvented the command of Scripture on this issue i.e. celibacy. A Roman Catholic married man is disqualified from being a bishop because he is married. No church has the authority to disregard the Scripture.
That isn’t precisely true. A man is given the choice of either, marrying a woman or marrying the Church. No Scripture has been disregarded. In fact, the Scripture which says:
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
King James Version (KJV)
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
This verse has been actuated and embraced. The Church believes the Word of God and has given her priests every advantage towards single minded devotion to God.
The Scripture does not address the issue of seminaries.
I would differ with that idea. St. Paul says to St. Timothy:
2 Timothy 2:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
The purpose of a seminary is to teach men to teach the Word of God to others. Therefore, I think this is relevant to that question. Here’s another:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Seminaries prepare men of God to be perfect in their behavior and attitude towards God and man. Therefore, this is also pertinent, in my opinion.
Of course, you have shown by your behavior that you believe your authority exceeds that of Scripture. So, I’m sure you’ll tell me to follow you rather than the Word of God.
Any church has true authority when it is following the teachings of Scripture.
You have described the Catholic Church. The only Church which truly follows Scripture.
De Maria,
It is true that a Roman Catholic married man is disqualified from being a bishop because he is married. No RC married man is given the choice or option to become a bishop. This contradicts the apostle’ teaching in I Tim 3. It is your church that puts itself above Scripture.
If your church was “truly follows Scripture” it would seek out married men with children. Instead, it disqualifies them because they are married.
Meyu, there has been a Western rite Catholic Bishop who was married (and in good standing) as late as 1969.
It’s a discipline not a dogma.
Thanks Daniel.
De Maria,
It is true that a Roman Catholic married man is disqualified from being a bishop because he is married. No RC married man is given the choice or option to become a bishop. This contradicts the apostle’ teaching in I Tim 3. It is your church that puts itself above Scripture.
If your church was “truly follows Scripture” it would seek out married men with children. Instead, it disqualifies them because they are married.
God has given the Church the grace to bind and loose. In accordance with the recommendation of St. Paul, the Church has now bound priests to be single minded followers of Christ. Whether you like it or not.
Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Are you greater than Scripture that you should deny the truth of these verses? Does the Church have the God given power to bind and loose? Or not?
Daniel,
Even if there was a Western rite Catholic Bishop who was married (and in good standing) as late as 1969 does not change the fact your church circumvents the Scripture on the qualifications for a bishop. It does not matter if you call it a discipline. Its still circumvents the Scripture.
Where does the Scripture give a church the authority to unbind what an apostle has commanded? Are your popes and celibate leaders greater than an apostle of Christ?
Meyu, your interpretation of that verse is so strict, that even Jesus’s choosing of the apostles doesn’t hold up to your level of scrutiny.
Simon the Zealot was a terrorist.
Peter was violent and hot tempered.
Matthew was a tax collector–a profession not exactly known known to produce ‘good testimony’ among outsiders.
Does the Scripture say anything that limits the authority of the Church to make even more narrow qualifications for ordination than what is found?
You seem to be comfortable (or at least you didn’t object) to seminaries. Scripture is silent on formal education being a requirement in ordinary circumstances for ordination, as you yourself said. But the Church has a requirement more strict than having ‘no opinion’ on the subject.
The Church either can or cannot make requirements for ordination more strict than what’s presented in Scripture.
Which is it?
meyuApril 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Where does the Scripture give a church the authority to unbind what an apostle has commanded?
Matt 16:18-19
Let us consider if there is a limit upon this power to bind and loose. God commanded that the Sabbath be celebrated on the seventh day of the week. Yet the Church now celebrates the Sabbath primarily upon the first day of the week. This is the limit of the power of binding and loosing which Jesus gave the Church.
Let us also consider the command which you purport that St. Paul issued. If it is so, then he himself rescinded that command when he appointed two unmarried and thus celibate men to the Bishoprick. Sts. Titus and Timothy.
Are your popes and celibate leaders greater than an apostle of Christ?
They are ambassadors for Christ every bit as much as any apostle. Christ is the same yesterday, today and always. And it is the same Christ who speaks through the Church yesterday, today and always:
2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Meyu, does your church celebrate communion with unfermented grape juice? Are her baptisms done in a river?
If the first question is answered with a yes, or the second with a no, please describe for us from Scripture which verse gives the authority for the Church to change the elements that constitute the sacraments.
If the answer to the first question is no, and the second yes, I’m curious which Calvinist church you belong to. Please tell us.
Daniel,
I’m only telling you what the qualifications are for bishop via 1Timothy 3. It is strict. The apostles do not hold the office of bishop so the qualifications don’t apply to them.
It is true any church can make a requirement but that does not mean it’s based on apostolic teachings. This is what you have with your church’s requirement of celibacy.
The church I go to is non denominational. Don’t know their position on Calvin. Take communion with grape juice.
Can’t think of a verse that says it must be wine. It’s called the fruit of the vine in Luke 22:18.
Scripture is the Word of God, the bible.
Now the overseer is to be above reproach:
able to teach
temperate
self-controlled
respectable
not violent but gentle
not a lover of money
He must also have a good reputation with outsiders…
Many of the apostles didn’t live up to that standard and Jesus chose them anyway.
My point is that we are supposed to get as close to that standard as possible.
If the Church sees fit to go beyond ‘able to teach’ and say ‘you must have a Masters of Divinity from an accredited school, and apprentice as a deacon for x number of years’ then they can do that.
If the Church sees fit to go beyond ‘married to one wife’ and say ‘you must be celibate’ then they can do that too.
Nothing prohibits the Church from laying out more strict qualifications than those found in 1 Tim 3.
Meyu, when you say that Scripture is the Word of God, not the Church–by ‘Word’ do you mean the ‘utterances [rhema] of God’ ‘the writings [graphe] of God’ or the ‘logos of God?’
Excellent questions! It is undeniable that Protestant seek to deny the Church the very rights they usurp for themselves. They claim the Church can’t interpret Scripture. Then they try to force their interpretation of Scripture upon us. They claim the Church has no authority over us. Then they try to force their authority upon us.
Excellent points!
Where do protestants claim the church cannot interpret scripture? Churches do have authority and responsibilities.
They say Scripture interprets Scripture, not the “Church interprets Scripture.”
When Protestants say ” Scripture interprets Scripture” it simply means that the scriptures must harmonize. Pastors-teachers and anyone who studies and reads Scripture must interpret the Scripture and do it correctly.
Just in case you missed my earlier comment: Where does Clement say that the Father poured out His wrath on the Son
I don’t want this question to go unanswered like the others because I think that, if we can finally get an answer to this question, we can demonstrate the inconsistency with your approach to history.
You may either:
(a) give me a chapter/verse citation showing me where Clement explicitly says this
(b) admit that Clement says no such thing.
And if you think my question is unfair, please feel free to explain why
You claim to be knowledgeable of the church fathers so you should be able to answer this. You tell me.
Even if he said nothing that would not change the fact that the Father did indeed pour His wrath on Christ for our sins since sin must punished. Remember: John 3:36–“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Those who do not believe in Christ have the wrath of God on them. This wrath is for sin and this is why Christ had the wrath of God on Himself because He became sin for us.
Isaiah 53:10 also clearly shows that God poured out His wrath on Christ for our sins where it says “But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.”
Meyu,
You’ve pushed this “You claim to be knowledgeable of the church fathers” about as far as it can possibly go. Can anyone be unaware of your motives here? You’re laying large evidentiary burdens on Catholics for us to prove anything, while refusing to provide the same proof yourself. And your defense is apparently your own willful ignorance. Because you refuse to read the Fathers, you feel free to make sweeping false claims about them, and instead of proving them, you demand that we disprove them. This tactic is indefensible: either provide evidence for your claims, or stop making these claims.
Second, John 3:36 says nothing of what you want it to say. Catholics agree that the wrath of God is on the unsaved. We have a different (and older, and better) explanation for how Christ fixes this. And I already shared the exegesis of Isaiah 53:10 that shows that it doesn’t mean what you think it means. You have overlooked or ignored this answer, in order to keep using the same piece of evidence (over and over and over).
Third, you’ve now posted over a hundred comments on my blog. At this point, are you any closer to being able to articulate what the Catholic Satisfaction position actually teaches, and how it differs from the position that you articulate? Because if you are able to do this, you’re not making that clear from your arguments.
Finally, you still didn’t answer his question: you just tried to put the burden back on Restless Pilgrim. This is ridiculous behavior, and you know it. You’re allowing your defensiveness to cause you to be dishonest and rude. You have a moral duty to be honest: expect more of yourself.
I.X.,
Joe
Correction: in retrospect, I may not have actually posted my response to Isaiah 53:10, because I think I got stuck trying to get you to hold to a single position on the first set of passages that you posted. I don’t think the debate ever progressed to the second set of passages, because I felt like you were being evasive, and it wasn’t getting anywhere. So mea culpa if I never posted that. Suffice to say, even many Protestant commentaries would show that you’re misreading Isaiah 53:10. And it doesn’t say that the Father hated the Son: it describes the Father as being pleased with His Son for suffering.
So just know that there are answers out there, if you’re ever interested in learning the truth. As it stands, I’m definitively not getting bogged down in another debate with you on this as long as you continue to debate dirty, refuse to answer direct questions, hold Catholics and yourself to glaring and capricious double-standards, and generally act evasively.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
I told you and the others I don’t know the fathers that well. i suspect you and the others don’t them that well either and yet you and Restless lead on as if you are some kinds experts on the fathers. If you and the others did, you would have answered these questions on the fathers. It is disingenuous on your part and his to try to assume something that you are not that knowledgeable about. I told him that I don’t know that much about Clement and asked him to answer it. Let’s see how well he knows what he claims. Yes, the burden is now on him.
#2– You do not speak with the full authority of your church. You are not the supreme interpreter of Scripture. Your interpretation of Is 53:10 and John 3:36 is your private opinion.
#3- I know what the RCC position is on all kinds of doctrines and practices. I have them with Scripture and found them not to be apostolic. You on the other have refused to acknowledge this even though you know full well these doctrines are taught by the apostles. Your claim that celibacy was a requirement is a case in point where you refuse to acknowledge that this was a later development and goes against 1 Tim 3.
Looks like you are getting frustrated with these discussions. I find that with RC’s that are confident about their church get frustrated when they start looking at the details of their beliefs are not as solid as they think they are and thus either stop the dialogue or become more and more resistant to facts and reasons that don’t support their positions.
BTW- the wrath of God was not only on the unsaved but on the elect before Christ died for them.
Joe,
I never said that Father hated the Son. However, we must remember that the Father forsook Him on the cross because He became sin (2 Cor 5:21) and bore our sins for us (1 Peter 2:24).
I tried having a discussion with you and the others and when things were not going your way you assume the worst about me. That is sad and it shows the weakness of your positions.
>I told you and the others I don’t know the fathers that well.
…yet you choose to use ECF quotations other people have found when you think that it serves your case. It grieves me that you make statements about Church history yet haven’t read the Fathers, thus depriving yourself of primary sources and instead limiting yourself to other people’s opinions and interpretations of history. You would never be satisfied with such a situation when learning about Scripture, so why would you do that with history?
> i suspect you and the others don’t them that well either and yet you and Restless lead on as if you are some kinds experts on the fathers.
You’re free to have your suspicions, but the fact is that both Joe and I have told you that we’ve cracked open the primary sources and actually read a good chunk of them. You can choose to believe that we’re lying, but you only have to search our blogs (Joe’s especially) to find proof of this. For what it’s worth, I’m currently half way through Augustine’s Confessions.
Several times now, rather than deal with the evidence presented, you simply draw our expertise into question. Please just deal with the evidence we present, otherwise I guess we will have to return to some of the other questions you’ve left unanswered, such as: Do you consider yourself a Bible expert? What formal training have you had in exegesis? Are you fluent in Greek and Hebrew?
> If you and the others did, you would have answered these questions on the fathers.
Which questions are you thinking of? It’s hard to tell sometimes because when we ask for a simple answer you suddenly pepper us with loads of tangential questions. Many of these question would be answered, I might add, had you made use of the resources we’ve offered to you many times.
> It is disingenuous on your part and his to try to assume something that you are not that knowledgeable about.
So we’ve progressed from suspicions to accusations?
In a recent comment you said that Augustine was “brilliant” and you didn’t answer my question: which of Augustine’s works have you read in order for you to reach this judgment about him? As I have pointed out, this is someone who believed in all kinds of things that you’d consider nonsense (Real Presence, Church Authority, Deuterocanon, Saints, Mary…).
>I told him that I don’t know that much about Clement and asked him to answer it.
You’ve read his letter – shouldn’t that be enough? It was enough for you to dismiss the Papacy…
>Let’s see how well he knows what he claims. Yes, the burden is now on him.
Okay then, let me give you the answer. At no point does Clement claim that the Father poured out his wrath on the Son. What does this do to the security of your doctrine of PSub?
You previously claimed that because Clement didn’t explicitly say that he was supreme ruler of the Church that the Papacy couldn’t be true. Shouldn’t this mean that because Clement didn’t explicitly articulate PSub that this doctrine isn’t true either?
Are you willing to use a consistent standard or does your historically novel interpretation of Scripture trump that? If so, in what sense can you say that “history matters”?
Here is what I found what Clement said in regards to the implications of the death of Christ from his Epistle to the Corinthians:“Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.” Clement, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 49, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (hereafter
ANF), eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994) 1:18.
This is a key component of penal substitution i.e. giving His blood for us. It was the Father’s will that He shed His blood and it was the wrath of God on Christ that made this happen.
We also see here the “substitution” of Christ “his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls.”
Clement certainly did support penal substitution.
Even if the fathers said nothing about what we call penal substitution it would change nothing since the Scriptures teach it. We don’t find this with the papacy.
BTW- when you read the fathers you are just getting their opinions and interpretations. Some of them support your church’s interpretations and some do not.
>Here is what I found what Clement…
…and I already preempted this in one of my earlier responses and made the point that this DOESN’T demonstrate PSub at all. Honestly, does making the statement that Jesus gave His blood for us automatically means PSub?! I’m afraid not – even Catholics believe that Jesus gave His Blood for us!
I think you actually do realize that Clement doesn’t say what you need him to say since you describe what he says as only a “a key component of penal substitution” rather than the full doctrine itself.
Sorry Meyu, this just won’t do. If you can demand an explicit articulation of the Papacy from Clement then I should be able to demand a statement from him that explicitly identifies his theology with PSub. This isn’t unreasonable if it is, according to you, the “heart of the Gospel”.
> Even if the fathers said nothing about what we call penal substitution it would change nothing…
Okay, so history means absolutely nothing if…
> …since the Scriptures teach it.
…it disagrees with your personal, historically novel interpretation of Scripture. So, I’ll say it again, if that’s the case, then in what sense does “history matter”?
> We don’t find this with the papacy
Yes, we do, it just doesn’t agree with your interpretation, *despite* the historicity of our interpretation.
>BTW- when you read the fathers you are just getting their opinions and interpretations.
Correct. When I read them I get the opinions and interpretations of those who were the successors to the Apostles. I get the interpretations of those who were linguistically, temporally and geographically closer to them than you.
Why should I trust you instead of them? What advantage do you have which they did not? For example, since you didn’t give a direct response I’m going to assume that you’re not fluent in the Biblical languages. Many of the Fathers were. So what advantage do you have?
The Church Fathers are primary sources. If we want to do good history we should use the best sources we can find.
>Some of [the Church Fathers] support your church’s interpretations and some do not.
That’s an interesting statement for someone who “doesn’t know the fathers that well” and who also thinks that “It is disingenuous…to try to assume something that you are not that knowledgeable about” :-/
You have to justify statements like this, I’m afraid. And linking to an article (which even then doesn’t actually make the argument you need) simply won’t cut it.
Restless,
Sorry, but what Clement said about the implications of the death of Christ does support penal substitution. You have to ask yourself why did Jesus have to spill His blood to begin with? Who demanded the blood sacrifices in the OT? It was the Father. It was the Father who poured out His wrath for sin on Christ. That’s why Jesus had to shed His blood and die. Only the Father in concert with the Son could make this happen. This is PS.
When you read the fathers, all you are getting is their opinions and interpretations. We don’t know if all the churches believed as they did since we have no record of all the beliefs of the churches. Keep in mind that just because the fathers were temporally and geographically closer to the apostles than us does not mean they knew them any better. That would be like saying that the person who lives closer to the president knows him better than someone who lives farther away.
We know the apostles better because we have more data, more qualified people who study this period than someone living a couple of hundred years from them. Take yourself. I would think you have all the 38 volumes of the fathers and can read them. How many people in the first 1000 years could claim that? i suspect not many.
The writings of the fathers are not the primary sources for doctrine. The Scriptures are. To know church history is going to require more than just the writings of the fathers. They help but it requires much more.
Not all church fathers writings support all of the RCC doctrines. Surely you know this. If you don’t, then that is an indication you don’t know them that well.
Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandmentsof Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the loveof God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which loveexalts is unspeakable. Love unites us to God. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love bears all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant inlove. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christour Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.
Er, that doesn’t sound like Psub to me. It doesn’t sound like Jesus absorbs the Father’s wrath in our place.
It sounds like Jesus volutarily sacrificed Himself for us, because He loves us.
Sorry, I’ve been away travelling with limited Internet access, so I’m a bit slow responding.
>Sorry, but what Clement said about the implications of the death of Christ does support penal substitution.
No…it doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t. But more importantly, that’s not what I asked for. I didn’t asked for things which imply PSub or suggest PSub, I asked for cold, hard, explicit declaration of PSub in the First Century.
This is what you demanded from us concerning the Papacy, this is what I demand of you concerning PSub. This is your standard, I’m just trying to get you to apply it consistently. So, please give me something which explicitly talks about the Father pouring out His wrath on the Son. If you can’t do this then you either have to admit your standard is faulty or admit that PSub is an incorrect doctrine.
> When you read the fathers, all you are getting is their opinions and interpretations.
…of those who were temporally, geographically and linguistically closer to Jesus and the Apostles, yes. Why should we trust you instead of them?
> We don’t know if all the churches believed as they did since we have no record of all the beliefs of the churches.
When we were talking about the Papacy would you have been satisfied if I had replied with what you’ve just said? Absolutely not! You said that if we don’t find a First Century written record explicitly articulating the power of the Bishop of Rome then it was not believed. Why do you not follow your own standard? Consistency please!
> Keep in mind that just because the fathers were temporally and geographically closer to the apostles than us does not mean they knew them any better.
I’m being increasingly worried about your methodology concerning history. Surely primary sources are better than secondary sources? Surely the greater the proximity of the source, the better?
> That would be like saying that the person who lives closer to the president knows him better than someone who lives farther away
Which of these people do you think know the President better? Person A or Person B
If I died tomorrow, who would be most likely to make sense of my prayer journal? Those who have attended my Bible studies here in California, or a North Korean in the 23rd Century?
We know the apostles better because we have more data …
Such as?
….more qualified people who study this period than someone living a couple of hundred years from them.
Are we back to appeals to authority? A vast amount of scholarship from recent years has been decidedly liberal, cutting the Bible to shreds, denying inspiration etc. The people who do this have lots of impressive PhDs. Are these the people you’re talking about? If not, how do you go about deciding who to listen to?
>Take yourself. I would think you have all the 38 volumes of the fathers and can read them. How many people in the first 1000 years could claim that? i suspect not many.
A fail to see your point here. If we’re talking about the belief in the Papacy in the First Century, what would be gained in reading the remaining 37 volumes?
Unless, unless…you’re willing to apply a hermenutic of continuity…which would mean that you’d have to start taking seriously the witness of later Christian writers…you would have to listen to Irenaeus and what he says about apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome…
>To know church history is going to require more than just the writings of the fathers.
What do you see as lacking? The Fathers (together with their pagan contemporaries who give us an outside view of the Church) are our primary sources!
> They help but it requires much more.
If they help, why won’t you read them? And again, what is this “much more” that’s required? Please be specific.
> Not all church fathers writings support all of the RCC doctrines. Surely you know this. If you don’t, then that is an indication you don’t know them that well.
Are you saying this from your wealth of reading of the Fathers? Forgive me for being snarky, but I’m honestly getting a little bit sick and tired of you constantly calling my knowledge into question while you refuse to read the texts yourself.
There were certainly individual fathers who held some odd beliefs, but again, that’s not how we (Catholics and Orthodox) use the Fathers. I have pointed you many times to resources which will explain to you how we approach them (“consensus patrum” etc).
It has occurred to me that if we had some sort of html signature so that at the end of every comment we made it said, “Meyu, you didn’t answer the bloody question!” it would really save us a lot of typing.
In the very rare event that he actually did answer one of our questions, we could just apologize after the fact.
We need to get on this idea right away. It could mean the difference between having healthy hands or carpal tunnel.
Meyu, going back to your problem with celibacy for clergy, please keep in mind that Catholics and Orthodox are against birth control.
So for example, a requirement for Catholic deacons, priests, and bishops is to pray the Divine Office (http://divineoffice.org/ ). It borders on the impossible for me to spend 20 minutes in prayer with three kids. I couldn’t imagine having to pray for a half hour every three hours from sunrise to bedtime with FIFTEEN KIDS IN THE HOUSE.
Catholics don’t get to have just one kid (usually). The norm is either no children at all or humongous families.
If you think you can be an effective pastor with 15 kids running around–Ha!–then I would love to see you try.