It’s been forty days since Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan, and he’s been fasting in the desert. The devil, spying an opportunity, approaches him with a challenge: “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread” (Luke 4:3).
Jesus’ response is cryptic: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:4).
What is Jesus talking about?
You may be inclined to say “Nothing, He’s talking about reading the Bible.” That’s a pretty standard interpretation, particularly amongst Protestants (like R.C. Sproul).
You might even think that this passage disproves the Eucharist, because it shows He uses eating imagery when He just means belief or Bible reading (as this Baptist pastor thought).
But those answers are Biblically ignorant, since they’re ignoring the context of Jesus’ Old Testament quotation. It turns out, there’s a Eucharistic dimension to His Scriptural quotations here that almost everyone misses. Look at the passage in context. Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 8:1-3, which says:
All the commandment which I command you this day you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to give to your fathers. And you shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments, or not. And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.
So is it just a coincidence that Jesus quotes from a passage about manna? No. And here’s why.
‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:4).
This saying also points to the validity of ‘Tradition’ because as Christ is God those who teach with the authority of the Christ also teach the word of God per the saying: “Those who hear you hear me.”
So the ‘mouth of God’ in the modern world is particularly the Catholic Church, and so by listening to it, and following it’s precepts, we will reap the benefits of the Matt. 4:4 saying, and will not experience spiritual death by means following the teachings the Catholic Church (…via the Catholic Catechism) carefully. And Jesus also says this very thing when He taught: “If any man keep my word He shall not see death forever.”
Of course, one of the teachings of Christ was “Eat my flesh and drink my blood”, and so this is one of the ‘life giving words’ directing everyone to receive the Blessed Sacrament that He left for us at the Last Supper, and which he also described as the “new testament in my blood.”
You say, “This saying also points to the validity of ‘Tradition’ because as Christ is God, those who teach with the authority of the Christ also teach the word of God per the saying: “Those who hear you hear me.”
Answer: False. No Bible scholar on Earth, let alone anyone in antiquity (except the Pope when he decided to self-appoint himself infallible in 1870) ever used Luke 10 to validate the supremacy or traditions of Rome.
Thankfully, the sword of the Lord (Scripture) stabs your position to death, for we see the very same general theme used elsewhere with NO “traditional” element in view, and therefore, immediately nullifies your claims about tradition in particular being equal to the written word of God. Nice try. You lose.
The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12 :48).
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (Jn 13:20).
“Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me”
(Matt 10:40)
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (Mk 9:37)
Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God…
(1 Thessalonians 4:8)
“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12 :48).”
After the death of the Lord the words were transmitted not by scripture but by the mouths of the Apostles, and then to their appointed successors. The author of the Gospel of Luke was not even an apostle, nor a Jew… but a gentile. He was an author of scripture and yet he never actually saw Jesus in the flesh, so I’ve heard. So, your focus on scripture is excessively scrupulous, in my opinion. It was the tradition and the authority of the Apostolic college, and their successors, that was authoritative in both creating scripture and then giving it it’s right interpretation….as compared to the Gnostic and other heretical Christian writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries.
So, we know the Church was authoritative in the first 50 years of Christianity. Then after this time synods and councils…united to the bishop of Rome…were the means of Ecclesiastical authority in the Early Church. And it continues in the same fashion today.
On the other hand…Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism was just a renegade and unhappy Catholic monk with some serious psychological issues, and who never should have presumed to be ordained a priest. His superiors in the monastery never should have allowed him to join, also, as his calling to such a vocation was dubious and basically made under duress and rash judgement. So, he built his vocation on a ‘sandy’ foundation and reaped the benefits of this hasty decision. Then he found it difficult to get out of his sacred vows. He should have just gotten married to begin with, and continued his original call to study and practice law.
So, this is the psychologically and spiritually unstable leader and hero that Protestants follow, as compared to the countless saints, monastics, popes, bishops and priests throughout the ages that Catholics find to be models for following Jesus Christ our Lord. Even as Jesus said: “Those who hear you, hear me.”
I found your response…(as well as the article)…unacceptable for many reasons. First it completely dodges my point! We are to compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13) as it alone is able to “fully equip” the Christian for their task (2 Tim 3). “Fully-equipped” needs no interpretation. Nothing else is necessary, including “tradition”, for the Scriptures alone are able to make us wise unto salvation and save our souls, as explicitly stated in 2 Tim 3:15 and James 1:26. Therefore, I laid out evidence which severely lessens the impact of your original contention which assumes Luke 10 offers proof that we adhere to the traditions of the RCC with the same devotion we adhere to Holy Writ….all because of the statement that “he who hears you hears me”. No. You are putting a much too heavy weight on Luke 10 which it is not able to bear. The fact remains that because there exist ***other*** verses which utilize the same “theme” and are void of anything relating to your presupposition, then Luke 10 must be void of it also. Simple common sense. These comparisons are the results of putting 1 Cor 2:13 into practice. Yet, at it’s core, this is precisely what bothers me about Catholicism, as did the opening article wherein, for example, your resident priest foists his “supernatural” rending of the food received in the O.T., and co-joins it to the alleged “supernatural” food that you call the Eucharist. While it is true the food received by the Israelites was ***visibly*** and supernaturally PROVIDED, it strains credulity to equate it with the Eucharist itself being supernatural “proper” (wherein we are to believe in the ***invisible*** miracle that the bread has changed via Transubstantiation).
You quote, “The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12:48).”
Well, since the only place we may find the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are in Scripture, then Scripture alone is more than sufficient to furnish us with the necessary info to reach eternal life (in accordance with 2 Tim 3:15 and James 1:26).
You claim: “After the death of the Lord, the words were transmitted not by scripture but by the mouths of the Apostles”.
So what? I take it that this is still yet another attempt to somehow sneak in through the back door, the concept of an infallible tradition passed down “viva voce”, the deposit of which, must be kept for the purposes of our salvation. But since Catholics cannot even identify all these nebulous traditions for the benefit of the casual observer, and because we read that Scripture alone has been stated to be quite “enough”, the rallying call for a bunch of “saving traditions” to adhere to ***for*** salvation,must be swiftly rejected.
By the way, no one denies that the gospel was preached by mouth back then, just as it is has been done ever since, by mouth, every day for 2,000 years! Hence, your zeal still does not produce what one hopes for to justify the “traditional element” of the RCC.
You claim: “So, we know the Church was authoritative in the first 50 years of Christianity.”
Yes, but not the ***Roman*** Catholic Church in particular, now please! Common sense dictates that if what you were saying were true, it would be mentioned in the book of Romans of all places, but of course, it isn’t.
Your claim: “Your focus on scripture is excessively scrupulous, in my opinion.”
I have a hunch that it might just get me a crown on that final day, rather than a dunce cap, in my opinion.
Your claim: “It was the tradition [which gives Scripture] it’s right interpretation…
Excuse me, but it is a known fact that the magisterium has NOT “officially” interpreted most of the Bible, nor can anyone tell us exactly how many verses she ***has*** already defined, “officially”. Been there, done that. So your apologetic falls flat.
You claim: “On the other hand…Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism…”
This statement leaves the impression that all Protestants are Lutherans, casting an immediate black cloud over your apologetic methods. While I concur with M.L. that we are saved by faith alone, he added the mandatory requirement of swallowing the Eucharist to be saved as well (as do Catholics), which unfortunately weakens his stance on the former. If Paul cursed the Judaizers by their adding even one thing to the gospel (which is the message of “Jesus Christ and him crucified”, not “Jesus Christ and his playing hide and seek in the Eucharist”) then Luther (and Catholics as well, who have added even more requirements than the Judaizers) are lost.
Joe,
John 1 says the Jesus is the Word of God. So, isn’t Jesus, in Matthew 4:4, actually foreshadowing the institution of the Eucharist?
“…since the only place we may find the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are in Scripture, then Scripture alone is more than sufficient to furnish us with the necessary info to reach eternal life (in accordance with 2 Tim 3:15 and James 1:26).”
Incorrect. Christian life flourished before the scriptures were written. And, if you read the Didache you will encounter early Christian writings that put the teachings of Christ into catechetical practice; teaching others how to gather together and celebrate the Eucharist , how to practice the virtues, the necessity of keeping the 10 Commandments, how to avoid ‘false apostles’ and many other items related to, and necessary for, living a truly Christian life in the first century A.D.
So, it was ‘Tradition’ first that emerged in the beginning of the Church, and Jesus Himself never mentioned to anyone that they were to write His sacred words down in any manner. Rather, it was Holy Tradition which was guided by the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit that decided to put the words of Christ to writing, for the benefit of future generations. but this was never mean’t to take the place, or substitute for, the actual and living Church that Jesus had founded, and that with power and countless spiritual gifts and graces. So, it was not by scripture, but by the power and truth of the Holy Spirit which built the foundations of the Holy Church in the early years of it’s existence.
So this is also to say that the scriptures, as we know them, did not exist in the earliest years of the Church, but only the scriptures of the Old Testament. So then, your argument for ‘sola scriptura’ has no argument in the actual history of the Church, and it never did. If it did, surely it would have been a be a well established catechetical teaching in the earliest centuries, and mentioned by writers such as Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, etc…etc… But, except for only a few paragraphs from St. Cyril of Jerusalem in about 340 AD, there is almost no reference to ‘Sola Scriptura’ that I have ever found in the writings of these many Church Fathers. And, if you possibly have an Early Church text that i might have missed…which explicitly promotes the doctrine of ‘sola Scriptura’ as Martin Luther taught….then I would love to read it, as I love all the writings of the Early Church Fathers (..even if they are not in themselves perfect).
So, read the read The Didache”, read the “Apostolic Constitutions”, read the “Apostolic traditions of Hippolytus”, read ” Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius , read the canons of the synod of Alvira, read the canons of the first council of Nicaea…. and then show me where in any of these famous writings is ‘sola scriptura’ advocated?
So, in all of this, we see how the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ is nothing more than the fantasy of a neurotic and obsessive compulsive false monk named Martin Luther…but after whom many unstable and spiritually ignorant Christians decided to follow, back in 1515 AD. And, Jesus warned His future disciples about following such unstable and heretical people, and in which they would ignore the teachings of true Christians such as St. Anselm, St. Bede, St. Benedict, St. Patrick, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Boniface, St. Columba, St.Dominic, St. Francis of Paola, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius, St. Francis Xavier, St. Theresa of Avila…etc…etc.. But rather, they chose a wayward, schizophrenic monk, with a false vocation to the priesthood, and a highly superstitious mentality, over all of these other great souls and saints that preceded him, and which saints laid the foundations for the entirety of our Western Civilization. Moreover, all of these great hero’s of Christianity have left to us countless writings, homilies, treatises’ and other writings which are easily and openly available for all to read in their entirety…so as to weigh the truth of their beautiful and highly spiritual teachings.
So, each soul is responsible for conducting his own search for The Truth in this life, and they will follow either The True Church and it’s countless saints, or else a false Church, filled with ignorant Christians, diabolically inspired souls and false Christian prophets…all of whom Jesus Himself, and early Christian writings such as “the Didache” taught everyone to beware of and avoid.
So my advice for everyone, is to take advantage of the internet, and with it’s immense capabilities… study Early Church history very carefully. Moreover, read every post that Joe Heschmeyer has ever written on this excellent Christian apologetic site. And, if you don’t become Catholic after that… then something is very seriously wrong with you, and you most probably are seriously dupe by Satan, and consequently should then should pray day and night for the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit to come to your aid , and lead you into all truth.
Best to everyone.
Me: the only place we may find the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are in Scripture
You: Incorrect. Christian life flourished before the scriptures were written.
Me: That answer is another dodge. Who cares if Christian life flourished before everyone owned a pocket Bible? The fact remains that no words of the Savior are contained anywhere else but in the Text. Neither has the RCC produced one blessed word he uttered outside of that Text. The point (which you yourself brought up) was reminding us that J-12-48 said we would be judged by his word alone on that final day. Since, therefore, topics such as being in subjection to the Pope as mandatory for salvation are foreign to the Text, it could not possibly be true because (as mentioned twice already) we are told what IS in the Text, suffices for salvation. It’s quite simple, really. Yet you amaze me by calling the doctrine of Sola Scriptura a “fantasy”. Well, let’s be honest. The only reason S.S. offends you is because there are doctrines which the RCC requires for salvation which are clearly NOT found therein, so of course, I understand why you must fight so strenuously against it. However, the power of the “engrafted word” to save our souls per James 1:26, overrules you, whether you like it or not.
You: “The Didache [teaches] the necessity of keeping the 10 Commandments”.
Me: The Bible does not teach the necessity of keeping the 10 commandments for salvation as your church erroneously teaches (CCC 2068). It isn’t possible. No one on Earth has ever done so…. perfectly…as all humanity (except the RC magisterium) agrees. Which is precisely why we need a Savior who ***has*** kept the ten commandments in our room and stead, and who has “fulfilled all righteousness” to the letter (John 3:15). The law was never designed to be a means of salvation, it was meant to be a “schoolmaster” which leads us to our need for Christ. You are free to TRY to keep all the commandments, but I guarantee you, you will fail, just as Paul did in Romans 7. Anyone who tries, but fails to keep it in even one teeny weenie little way, is guilty of breaking all of it, says the apostle James. Moreover, all those who try to be saved by the law (which the RCC teaches in CCC 16), are under a curse (Gal 3:10). Ergo, all Catholics are unsaved I am sorry to inform you.
Now this is not to say that God’s law is not gloriously good and that we shouldn’t strive to keep it as our goal, but the plain simple fact of the matter is that our obedience to the law comes and goes like the waves of the sea, and is not something we can offer as a trophy on Judgment Day. We ***must*** trust in the “obedience of the One” per Romans 5:19, rather than trusting in our own “right conduct” per CCC 16, lest we be thrown out like those who did just that in Matthew 7.
You: “Jesus Himself never mentioned to anyone that they were to write His sacred words down in any manner”.
Me: Wrong. “Write it down!” he says 10 times in Rev 2 & 3.
You: The scriptures, as we know them, did not exist in the earliest years of the Church, but only the scriptures of the Old Testament.
Me: Wrong. Peter called Paul’s writing “Scripture”. Would you like to know the verse?
You: Your argument for ‘sola scriptura’ has no argument in the actual history of the Church, and it never did. If it did, surely it would have been a be a well established catechetical teaching in the earliest centuries, and mentioned by writers such as Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, etc…etc… So my advice for everyone, is to take advantage of the internet…
Me: Yes, let us do just THAT.
Augustine: “Now who is it that submits to divine Scripture, save he who reads it piously, deferring to it as of SUPREME authority… ”
(Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, ch XI).
“For I confess to your charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor to the canonical books of Scripture; of these ALONE do I most firmly believe the authors were completely free from error” (NPNF1, Vol 1, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82, ch 1.3
“Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scipture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority… ” (ibid. ch 2.5)
“But we wished to show that the Scriptures of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever…” (NPNF1, vol II, The City of God, Book XIV, ch 7).
“This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other” (NPNF1, vol I, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIII.5).
“But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture… stands so absolutlely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops…but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth.” (NPNF1, vol IV, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, ch 3).
“Owning unhestitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures” (NPNF1, vol V, On Nature & Grace, ch 71).
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: “Sufficient, sufficient for this are the Scriptures of the holy Fathers, which if anyone will diligently study, he would immediately have his mind filled with divine light.” (“The Divine Rule of Faith”, translated by William Goode, vol 3, p. 281-2, “De SS. Trinitate Dialogus I.)
“Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly SUFFICIENT, even so, that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent…” (ibid, p. 282-3, “Contra Julian, Lib. VII).
JUSTIN MARTYR: “Moreover, I would wish that all…do not keep themselves away from the words of the Savior. For they possess a terrible power in themselves and are SUFFICIENT to inspire those who turn from the path of rectitude with awe…” (ANF, vol 1, Dialogue of Justin, ch. 8).
TERTULLIAN: “From what other source could they derive their arguments concerning the things of the faith except from the records of the faith?” (ANF, Vol 3, Prescription against Heretics”, chap 14). “If it is no where written, then let the woe which impends [be upon] all who add to or take away from the written word.” (ANF, Vol 3, Against Hermogenes, ch. 22).
“It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do.” (ANF, Vol 3, “Against Praexes 10,11).
“Let them, then, prove to us that those angels derived their flesh from the stars. If they do not prove it [it is] because it is not written.” (ANF, Vol 3, “On the Flesh of Christ”, ch 6).
“Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone” (ANF, vol 3, “On the Resurrection of the Flesh”, ch. 3).
“What Scripture does not denote, it denies” (ANF, Vol IV, “On Monogomy”, ch. 4).
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: “We say nothing apart from the Scriptures”.
(ANF, Vol 2, The Stromata, Book VI, Chap XV).
ORIGIN: “And now, what we have drawn from the authority of Scripture ought to be SUFFICIENT to refute the arguments of the heretics.” (ANF, Vol 4, “De Principiis”, Book 2, chap V.3)
“We must take the Scriptures as witnesses [to prove the truth of what we say]. For our doctrines and interpretations without such witness, are not to be believed” (“In Jeremiam, Homilia 1.7, Translation by William Goode, in his “The Divine Rule of Faith & Practice”, vol 3, p.55).
“So every doctrine that is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable to some, is not sacred, because it is not comprehended within the doctrine of Scripture… ” (Goode: “In Matthaeum Commentariorum” Series 18, vol 3, p. 57-58).
“See how close they are upon danger, who neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures, which alone ought to direct our judgment in such an examination”
(Goode: “Commentaria in Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, Liber X.35; vol 3, p. 56)
ATHANATIUS: “Since then nothing is said in the Scripture, it is evident that these things had never taken place before” (NPNF2, Vol 4, “On the Incarnation of the Word” 38).
“For the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from the Scriptures than from other sources” (NPNF2, vol 4, “De Decretis”, ch. 7).
“…it will be well to content ourselves with the divine Scripture, and that we all obey the precept which it has given us both in regard to other heresies…. ..This may SUFFICE to instruct us all.” (NPNF2, Vol 4, “History of the Arians”, Part VIII.80, Duty of Separating from Heretics).
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is SUFFICIENT above all things”
(NPNF2, Vol 4, “Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, Part 1, History of the Councils”, 6.)
“These are the fountations of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these ALONE is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness” (NPNF2, Vol 4, Letters of Athanatius, 1,Festal Letters, Letter 39).
HILARY OF POITIERS: “Those things which are not contained in the book of the law, we ought not to be aquainted with” (Translation by W. Goode (ibid) vol 3, p. 120).
“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement beyond the statements of Scripture upon this grave and abstruse matter.” (NPNF2, Vol IX, “On the Trinity”, Book II.5).
“Let human reason refrain from passing barriers divinely set….cleave to the very letter of revelation. Each point in our enquiry shall be considered in the light of His instruction. ” (NPNF2, vol IX, “On the Trinity”, Book IV.14).
“If any man propose to express what is known in other words than those supplied by God [namely, the Scriptures!] he must inevitably either display his own ignorance, or else leave his reader’s minds in utter complexity” (NPNF2, vol IX, “On the Trinity”, Book VII.38).
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: “And pray, read none of the apocryphal writings, for why dost thou…troublest thyself in vain about those which are disputed. Read the Divine Scriptures.. .but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings.” (NPNF2, vol VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV.33-37).
“What else is there that knoweth the deep things of God, save only the Holy Ghost who spoke the Divine Scriptures? …why then dost thou busy thyself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures?” (ibid, Lecture XI.12). “Whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it…whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.” (ibid, Lecture XVI.2).
“Believe not what I say; unless thou learn from the Holy Scripturers concerning the Virgin….receive not testimony from man” (ibid, Lecture XII.5).
EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS: “There is no proof for their mythological constructions. No Scripture said those things” (“The Panarion of Epiphanius”, Book 1, Section II, Heresy 34.1-4., p. 189-90).
NICETA: “My single appeal will be to the Holy Scriptures” (Fathers of the Chruch, vol 7, “Writings of Niceta of Remesiana”, p. 23).
AMBROSE: “I only desire to attain to that care and diligence in the sacred writings” (NPNF2, vol X, “On the Duties of the Clergy”, Book I, ch 1.3.)
BASIL OF CAESAREA: “Question: What mind ought a prelate to have in those writings which he commands or appoints? Answer: ….he should neither speak or order anything beyond the will of God as declared in the Scriptures.” (Goode: Vol 3, p. 132. “Regulae Brevius Tractate, Interrogatio et Responsio XCVIII.)
“Believe those things that are written. What is not written, inquire not into.”
(Goode, vol 3, p. 134. “Homilia Adversus Calumn S. Trinitatis”) .
“Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us, and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (NPNF2, Vol VIII, Letters, Letter 189, “To Eustathius the Physician 3).
“Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the ALL-SUFFICIENT counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.” (NPNF2, vol VIII, Letters, Letter 283)
GREGORY OF NYSSA: “Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine Words” (NPNF2, vol V, “On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit” para 2).
THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA (Bishop from 385-412): “It would be the instigation of a demonical spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures” (Goode: vol 3, p. 154-55, “A Paschal Letter” (401 A.D.)
JEROME: “Everything we say, we ought to confirm from Sacred Scripture” (Fathers of the Church, vol 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome, vol 1, On the Psalms, Homily 26, p. 205).
“I beg of you my dear brother, to live among these books, to mediatate upon them; to know nothing else, to seek nothing else”. (NPNF2, vol VI, The letters of St. Jerome, Letter 53.10).
CHRYSOSTOM: “The sea rages, but thou sailest on with calm weather; for thou hast the study of the Scriptures for thy pilot; for this is the cable which the trials of life do not break asunder.” (NPNF1, vol IX, On Eutropius, Patrician and Consul, Homily II.1).
“Great is the profit of the divine Scriptures and ALL-SUFFICIENT is the aid which comes from them.” (NPNF1, vol XIV, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, #37).
JOHN OF DAMACUS: “God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance… He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things therefore, have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receieve; and know and honor, seeking for nothing beyond these.” (NPNF2, vol IX, Book I, chapter 1, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”).
CAESARIUS, Bishop of Arles: “Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence” (Fathers of the Church, vol 66, Sermon 187-238, Sermon 213.1-2, p. 106-7).
THEODORET OF CYRRHUS: “For us, the divine writings are SUFFICIENT” (NPNF2, vol III, Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Letter 21, “To the learned Eusebius”).
“Do not I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture ALONE” (NPNF2, vol III, Theodoret, Dialogue I –The Immutable).
All of these fathers and saints that you mention attended one form of ‘Divine Liturgy’, or the other, on a frequent basis in their lives, as most of them were either bishops or priests of the Catholic Church. They also attended catechesis at some point in their lives. Both catechesis and sacraments (liturgy) were realities of the Catholic faith founded on the imitation, and following of, Jesus as taught by the Apostles. And recall, as an example of this, what Paul taught: “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ”.
So all of these non-scriptural practices, such as liturgies and sacraments, were in place and practice before the scriptures were compiled. And the scriptures themselves emerged from these liturgies and traditional practices, because even as with the Jews before them, the Christians chose literature to be read at the Eucharistic gatherings that they held in the 1st century. And, it is the texts read at these early liturgies (Christian gatherings for the Eucharist and other sacraments), texts such as the letters of Paul…that were the types of spiritually useful texts included in the future New Testament. Eusebius details this historical truth in His ‘Ecclesiastical History.” And, any writing that was not read at a Divine Liturgy from the earliest apostolic times, was considered to be ‘spurious’ ,or questionable, as to it’s authenticity of authorship.
So, Liturgy and sacraments predated scripture, as Liturgy and sacraments are not the study of the faith, but the actual living ‘practice’ of the faith. For instance, you can read about baptism all day long, and you can be highly inspired by such reading. But, reading is not the same as actually being baptized. Likewise, reading about having ones sins forgiven, as Jesus told His apostles…”Those whose sins you forgive are forgiven”…is not the same as actually having ones sins forgiven in all actuality by one of the apostles (or their successors).
And so Scripture is only one element of the Holy Faith. But putting into practice what scripture and Christian history teach is the actual ‘living out’ of the faith that Jesus wants us to have, because He taught:
“Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.
So, the mere idea of ‘sola scriptura’ neglects to acknowledge the importance, and even necessity, of actually ‘living out’ Christ’s teachings in ‘real time’…. which is more essential for one’s salvation than the mere reading of scripture…. for we all know that even Satan himself is an expert in sacred scripture.
AWLMS responds to the tremendous truckload of evidence for the principle of Sola Scriptura from the early church by saying,
“All of these fathers and saints that you mention attended one form of ‘Divine Liturgy’, or the other, on a frequent basis in their lives”.
I answer that this is a non-response and a dodge, just like his other one. I categorically took on your challenge that the concept of S.S. was historically unknown and refuted it.
Then you try to bring up non-issues hoping the reader will forget your error, saying,
“Scripture is only one element of the Holy Faith. But putting into practice what scripture and Christian history teach is the actual ‘living out’ of the faith that Jesus wants us to have”.
I answer that aside from this having nothing to do with the challenge, I will remind you that there is not one non-Catholic on the face of the Earth, living or dead since time began, who has ever advocated NOT “living out the faith”. Your comment amounts to nothing less than a straw man argument and you ought to be ashamed.
I will get to your other combox momentarily.
You obviously recognize the height, length, width and breath of irrefutable evidence for the principle of S.S. found on the lips of these men, so your escape route is to seek to plant doubt into the mind of the reader to suggest I have taken them “outta context”. > Of course we are here to refute – to place doubt – in opposing posts. That is called apologetics. More on that later. As for your (mis) usage of the Church Fathers, consider:
These men are usually ordained clergy, Doctors of the Church, irrefutably, historically, doctrinally Catholic. These are men who have lifetime bodies of dogmatic and apologetic work that add to and are accepted by the Catholic Church. What you have done here, is you have attempted to hijack these men as early Reformed apologists, completely ignoring their lifetimes of Catholic dogmatic-accepted work…by….nose-picking…. **single quotes*……this is pathetically weak, laughably transparent, and wholly undeserving of the appellation “apologetics.” Your only proper course would be to pick one, then demonstrate (with references) how, over time, through his body of works, viewpoints changed and to justify how those viewpoints match theologies that often did not come into existence until a millennium later. But you know you can’t. Even with lying and obfuscation, you are intellectually and theologically not even close to that impossible task. Irked, to his credit, honorably used to try and do that. I never saw a failure on the part of such as awlms, duane, LLC and Margo properly to refute such attempts at “adopting” the early Fathers as proto-Calvinists, or whatever of 30,000.
So….let’s say, I canvass the works of RC Sproul, NT Wright, James White, and find some quotes describing a Catholic dogma they wished to discuss. I lift those quotes, insert in an apologetic discussion, and say …”see, all these men BELIEVE! Closet Catholics all…….” See how that works? Even a blind pig could find that acorn.
As Patrick Henry said, it is in vain to extenuate the matter. On your side of the apologetic debate, you have bluster and an apparently limitless reservoir of raw hatred.. We have love and faith and history and the light of truth. In your desperation to possibly turn away from Catholicism someone, anyone reading this blog you spew the-same-venom, refuted post after post, year after year, not realizing that there have been multiple Reformed here who have disavowed you, and converts who say, this guy is a prime example of why-I-left…….
Awlms: I wonder if Clifford’s “B” is “Barry?”
No matter…..whomever he is, he’s got his cherry-picker working full time. I would ask, what is the context of *each and every quote?* especially considering, these all were men who were ordained clergy in the Catholic Church, and who accepted her full authority, including liturgy and tradition. Cherry-picking out of context is a typical Reformista desperation ploy, poor apologetics, and hardly worth a response.
Just one for the sake of demonstration:
THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA (Bishop from 385-412): “It would be the instigation of a demonical spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures” (Goode: vol 3, p. 154-55, “A Paschal Letter” (401 A.D.)”
Just whom is following “the human mind” but every individual Reformista clown – a term Luther used – who think’s he’s guided by the Holy Spirit and forms his own little sect. And who determines the “authority” of Scripture? Each and every individual “clown?” Clifford demonstrates himself to be one of the hubristic self-apppointed “clowns” by his open disrespect of Martin Luther, his Reformist progenitor, as if schism, chaos and doctrinal division were the way to salvation.
I love the beginning of Rod Bennet’s book “The Apostasy that Wasn’t – the Story of the Unbreakable early Church” wherein he describes his finding, on a mountaintop in Tennessee, a religious “theme park” where the founder, in the early 1900’s, claimed to have received a vision, where he was chosen to found and restore the Church of Christ “in the fields of the woods” after it had lain dormant for 1900 years. That led Bennett to obtain a full, unabridged copy of the Fathers which he studied in it’s entirety (unlike, say, such as Jimmy White, who undoubtedly provided the nose-picked cut-paste list Clifford so thoughtfully gifted us) and ended up converting to Catholicism.
Al, I am sure both you and I could provide quotes from the selfsame Fathers – men like Tertullian, St. Hillary, Augustine, Eusebius, Irenaeus, etc., – describing the holy unity and continuity of the Catholic Church. I have a nice pile at my fingertips. But it would just lead to more Reformista mouth-foaming and uncontextual cherry picking.
“AWLMS responds to the tremendous truckload of evidence” > there’s only one thing you provide by the truckload, “Clifford.” And it don’t smell like roses. Great for flower beds.
Until you provide full context for *each and every cherry-picked quote* your cut-paste research isn’t worth even the slightest bit of apologetic consideration.
Back to your Jimmy White Radical Reformista pseudo-apologetic drawing board. Tell him he’s going to have to do some *real* homework if he wants his troll to compete on this board.
Poster “A.K.” (presumably meaning “All Knowing”), submits,
“I would ask, what is the context of *each and every quote?* especially considering, these all were men who were ordained clergy in the Catholic Church”.
I answer: You obviously recognize the height, length, width and breath of irrefutable evidence for the principle of S.S. found on the lips of these men, so your escape route is to seek to plant doubt into the mind of the reader to suggest I have taken them “outta context”. No, that will not do at all, especially in light of the fact that their unwavering devotion to and placement of, Scripture, above the very NAME of God, is exactly how the Lord would want it (Ps 138:2). Their statements speak for themselves and there is no denying it.
The fact that these people may be guilty of some “Catholicity”, is thoroughly beside the point. Anyone can claim that there are even green-eyed monsters in the Text for all I care…God will deal with everyone’s wrong conclusions on Judgment Day. The point was that they were seeking to find their theology in the Text, and the fact that they set it high above all other authority in the church is beyond dispute. They recognized that this is the crystal clear testimony of Holy Writ itself (in far too many examples to list here), and thus, we are not talking about the ***doctrine*** of these men in general, but about whether the principle of S.S. is found in their writings. And as I proved beyond all shadow of a doubt, it most certainly was. Catholics ***never*** will win this argument because the rational mind sees the biblical and historical evidence is unambiguously against them.
By the way, these men were “catholic” in the sense of the church beginning to be called that word at some point. I take it you know it simply means “universal”. You are using it to identify an institution under the jurisdiction and leadership of a man in Italy who supposedly was ruling over the entire Christian world at the time, falsely reported in your catechism in #834. However, none of the people you mentioned were under the constraints of Roman supremacy, and the fact that you’re trying to portray them as distinctly Roman Catholic, is a bold-faced lie. Augustine, for example, believed the rock of Matt 16 was Christ. Were he to live in this day and age, he would not be welcome at your neighborhood Romanist revival.
“The point (which you yourself brought up) was reminding us that J-12-48 said we would be judged by his word alone on that final day.”
Why are you so scrupulous as to throw out all of the other scriptures relating to Eternal Judgement. Just like Luther, you like to dream that it is ONLY the word that will judge, and ONLY by faith the we are saved…..when in reality and in the scriptures themselves they teach that there are many aspects and ways of being judged, and many ways that faith produces salvation.
So, both you and Luther should just throw out the word ONLY when dealing with almost anything theological.
Consider these teachings on judgement, for instance:
“And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
[Matthew 19:28]
“For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” [Matthew 7:2]
“Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.” [Luke 6:37]
For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according AS HE HAS DONE, whether it be good or evil.” [2 Corinthians 5:10]
“If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; [24] Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. [25] Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.” [Matt 5:23]
**************************
So again, why choose one scripture, but neglect all the rest that speak and teach on the same subject matter? Is it not rather much better to accept all of the scriptures above, so as to attain a comprehensive understanding of Christ’s holy teachings….and which the Catholic Church has attained and taught throughout world over the last 20 centuries? Or, would you rather just ignore the multitudes of scriptures that don’t support the novelties of Martin Luther and his wacky 16th century theological fabrications?
Clifford wrote:
“The Bible does not teach the necessity of keeping the 10 commandments for salvation as your church erroneously teaches (CCC 2068). It isn’t possible. No one on Earth has ever done so…. perfectly…as all humanity (except the RC magisterium) agrees. Which is precisely why we need a Savior who ***has*** kept the ten commandments in our room and stead, and who has “fulfilled all righteousness” to the letter (John 3:15)”
“The Bible does not teach the necessity of keeping the 10 commandments”??
I guess you put on a blindfold on when you read sacred scripture so that you can ignore easy to understand teachings of Jesus Christ on the subjects you don’t like?, such as where Jesus teaches :
“And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.” [Matthew 19:17]
“He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 5:19]
Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother. But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven
And then what about the Book of Revelation on the subject?
“And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:17]
“Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 14:12]
**********************************
So Clifford B., why do you say that the ten commandments are not necessary for a Christian to follow when Jesus in the above scriptural quotes CLEARLY says they are?
Poster AWLMS is astonished when I said, “The Bible does not teach the necessity of keeping the 10 commandments”, and responds,
“I guess you put a blindfold on when you read sacred scripture so that you can ignore easy to understand teachings of Jesus Christ on the subjects you don’t like?, such as where Jesus teaches :
“And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.” [Matthew 19:17]
So why do you say that the ten commandments are not necessary for a Christian to follow when Jesus in the above scriptural quotes CLEARLY says they are?
I answer: To begin with, one can only chuckle when coming across a two-faced Catholic who asserts something is so… “CLEAR”… and… “easy to understand”. But wait! Is not the statement that “All have sinned” and that there are no exceptions, “No, not one”…clear as the light of day? Is it not also “CLEAR” that the only exception (made roughly 10 times) is for Christ alone? Yet…why, pray tell, are there over a thousand Catholic websites, including this one, whose owners spend their entire adult lives telling us that Mary is an exception to this “clear” and “easy to understand” statement???
Consequently, if it’s good enough for poster AWLMS to suggest there is deeper meaning behind surface-level statements, then it is good enough for me, thank you so very much.
Now the difference between my allegation about the commandments and the allegation that Mary was sinless, perpetually virgin and “took the elevator” to heaven, is that there is strictly no evidence for the latter in the Text, and yet the RCC makes salvation contingent upon believing them. On the other hand, James 1:21 & 2 Tim 3:15 indicate all that is necessary for salvation is found solely in the Text. Ergo, all efforts to vindicate these absent marian dogmas as a requirement for eternal life, are useless because they only exist in the cobwebs of the Catholic mind.
Aside from the fact that no one has EVER kept the commandments perfectly, the failed attempt at keeping them only makes us guilty in God’s eyes of breaking ALL OF IT (James 2:10). Hence, Jesus was NOT instructing that man to keep all the commandments for heaven’s gate to be opened. Therefore, unlike mariology, my thesis DOES have the support of Scripture, as well as the universal testimony of Biblical scholars that would violently disagree with your take on that conversation. Let the reader do their own research on that verse. Suffice to say that if that ***was*** what he meant, then the Messiah certainly wasted his precious time undergoing a bloody death on the cross, did he not?
Having said that, it may surprise you to learn that I now proclaim that the only way to heaven is indeed…. by keeping all the commandments!!! What do I mean?
The Bible is unequivocal. None but the doers of the law shall be justified (Rms 2). In other words, a righteous life; that is to say, a life of perfect obedience, is the only possible basis of acceptance with a just, holy and righteous God. Sadly tho, everyone must admit, according to James, that we are guilty of breaking ALL of God’s law.
“Those who sin IN the law (e.g., AWLMS has a knowledge of the law, but has sinned by breaking it) will be judged BY the law” (Rms 2:12). It doesn’t matter if AWLMS is a doer of the law. His first error is trying to be justified by the law in the first place as the catechism bogusly teaches #16 and 2068. But again, all those who even ATTEMPT to do so are under a curse says Galatians 3:10. His second error is that we all know that at some point, AWLMS has broken the law, so there is no way out for him. He is lost. So….how then can AWLMS be saved?
The Christian gospel only makes sense against the backdrop of God’s radical and uncompromising demand for complete and total righteousness. Once people realize this, they must become distressed as to how they can meet that demand, which is why we are told that the law is a schoolmaster which leads us to Christ. It was he who came and lived a life of perfect obedience to the law. What God demands from us, Jesus provided in the life he lived and the death he died. Admittingly, the catechism EVER so briefly alludes to this by entitling #615, “Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience”, but fails miserably to go into detail, leaving readers up a creek without a paddle. While the statement is true, the rest of their catechism contradicts it and in practice, the last words anyone can hope to hear come out of the typical Catholic mouth is that “I am trusting in the obedience of Christ, rather than my own. I am trusting in my “right conduct” to get to heaven because the Pope told me so in CCC #16.
However, Scripture is emphatic that it is impossible for a man to be justified by law-keeping (Acts 13:39, Rms 3:20). NOTE: This is not a contradiction to the “doers of the law will be justified”. We must understand the “doers” verse as indicating that the law demands a perfect, continuous obedience, and that if anyone COULD produce this perfect obedience, he would indeed be justified. But the cold, hard reality is that everyone has failed to comply at some point.
Anyway, the remedy to the confused Catholic comes in the sentence, “but NOW, the righteousness of God has been revealed…in the face of Jesus Christ”. God has appointed the gift of faith to those who will choose to trust in the perfect, law-conforming life of the Redeemer as the only basis for acceptance with him (Rms 5:19) and not the ludicrous idea that we are saved by our “right conduct with the HELP of God’s law” (CCC 16) via an infusion of righteousness by the Holy Spirit WITHIN us, as the RCC erroneously teaches. The gospel, when believed, is what Christ has done FOR us (which is justification), not what the Holy Spirit does IN us (which is sanctification). The fatal flaw of Catholicism is that they are trusting in their sanctification, the logical ramification being that they consider their good deeds have the same efficacy as the blood of Christ! (CCC 1821). They forget that no good work has the power to address our sin debt, therefore our sanctifying good deeds MUST be considered separate from our justification. The catechism denies this, saying our justification ***includes*** our sanctification. That is 100% wrong, thus their idea of being saved by faith and works is a lie. We are saved “apart from works” says the Lord, and “not by works of righteousness which we have done”. But this was the fatal mistake of the 5 foolish virgins, the self-proclaiming Christians in Matt 7, and the man who stood in the temple to pray, all of whom were such upstanding religious citizens, but were all sent to hell.
“However, Scripture is emphatic that it is impossible for a man to be justified by law-keeping (Acts 13:39, Rms 3:20).” > That would be Judaic/Levitical law, “Clifford,” in response to the Judaizers, and has no bearing on the authority of Jesus Christ’s ordained Church on earth (Matt 16:18). Get someone to show and ‘splain to you, the Greek text. It’ll help a lot.
The resident priest says in his article that, “you might even think that this passage disproves the Eucharist, because it shows He uses eating imagery when He just means belief or Bible reading…but those answers are Biblically ignorant, since they’re ignoring the context of Jesus’ Old Testament quotation. It turns out, there’s a Eucharistic dimension to His Scriptural quotations”.
I answer: There is nothing biblically ignorant or anything taken out of context when one concludes that “man shall not live by bread alone” as meaning to live under the Lordship of Christ. What ***is*** biblically ignorant (and rather sinister) is to foist upon that verse a “hidden” meaning, as you say in your title, something that no one in the history of the universe ever thought of until the day you posted this article in the year of our Lord 2018.
Now as a matter of fact, there is quite a lot of eating imagery in connection with “eating God” in a metaphorical sense, which essentially means… (gasp!)… to believe and adhere to what he says by simple faith, none of which you even alluded to in your article. “Hearken diligently to me and eat” (Isa 55:2), “Oh taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8), [I am the] “Fountain of Living Waters” (Jeremiah 2:13), “Everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters…and draw water out of the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3, 55:1; cf. Psalm 42:1, 63:1), “Your words were found and I did EAT them, and they were the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer 15:16) are an immediate black cloud which hangs over your thesis.
The same goes for when Israel, “drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4). This is not only a commentary that identifies the rock of Matt 16 as none other than the Lord Jesus Christ (and not Peter), but is also an indictment on the Eucharist. How? God quenched their thirst in the wilderness by splitting rocks and causing streams of water to flow out (Psalm 78:15-16). If the rock was not LITERALLY Christ (and it wasn’t), then the bread at your communion is not literally his body either. They “drank” from their spiritual Rock, by faith, who was Christ supplying their need. Quite simple, really.
Eating imagery to convey simple faith continues with “taste the kindness of the Lord” (1 Peter 2:2-3), “drink the pure milk of the word” (1 Peter 2:2), “drink into one spirit” by embracing all of his benefits, by faith (1 Cor 12:13). The final wrecking ball against the Rome’s literal take on John 6 is the metaphorical commentary Jesus himself offered by the drinking imagery in chapter 7 (7:35-7). Thus, if the act of drinking is metaphorical in chapter 7, then it was likewise in chapter 6, and by extension, at the Last Supper as well.
Hence, all of this eating imagery amounts to God’s word acting “like a hammer which smashes the Roman Catholic rock into pieces” when it comes to their Eucharist (Jer 23:29-20).
Mr. H says…”When the crowds ask for manna in John 6:30-31, they’re falling into the same error as the devil. They want the bread alone, without the theological implications. This time, Jesus reveals more in his reply: “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world” (John 6:32-33).
I answer: Mr. H needs to start another Catholic denomination (there are so many you understand, it makes one dizzy). In his book, “Not By Bread Alone”, the alleged most popular RC apologist on the planet, Robert Sungenis, tells us that the bread Jesus refers in vs. 30-1 is metaphorical. But after vs. 47, he opines that Jesus was now speaking literally about his being the bread (p. 172). The never-ending endorsements found in his books, “Not by faith alone”, “Not by bread alone” and “Not by scripture alone”, means there are a LOT of Catholics who would reject Mr. H thinking Jesus was speaking literally in vs. 30-1.
Mr. H says…Jesus now reveals himself as the true manna: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).
I answer: Contrary to the typical RC thought that the flesh Jesus is talking about here is his flesh he would supposedly give in the Eucharist for public consumption, the universal understanding is that the flesh he refers to here is his flesh given on the cross.
“Your words were found and I did EAT them, and they were the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer 15:16) are an immediate black cloud which hangs over your thesis.” >so…was anyone there with Jeremiah to ask him, “Jerry, did you **really mean** you ATE those words, like a shank of lamb?” No, of course not….but the Eucharistic narrative of John 6 contains a discourse that is exactly-just-that. Consider:
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Fine, so far, one may *try* and interpret that as “faith” or “Belief.” But then…..
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Oh my…the problems begin. Jesus here has an out…he can “I spoke of the faith you must have, and take into yourselves as if it were food.” However, He does not…..
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Now…I could cut/paste the Merriam-Webster definitions for “truly” and “real” but I don’t think that necessary. Jesus, unlike the earlier metaphoric foreshadowings in the OT, was deadly serious and literal about his Flesh.
Now…so as not to reinvent the wheel, I am going to cut/paste a post I made earlier this week, on a very similar subject, the Real Presence and John 6:
Context here is important. John 6 took place during Passover one year before the Triduum. As we know, Holy Scripture is shot through with foreshadowings of all types. Jesus knew His “customers”….during this Passover He was giving them a foreshadow of the Eucharistic nature of His sacrifice for several reasons. First, he weeded out those unwilling to believe Him unconditionally. Second, those who were confused but willing, he gave them something about which to think – even in back of their minds – for the following year. Thus, in the Eucharistic Narratives of the Last Supper, he did not “spring” on the Apostles the concept of eating His Flesh and Blood…he answered the unanswered question in their minds “how can we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood?” by showing them he would offer His both to them – and to all faithful Christians from then on, for all time until His return – under the appearance of bread and wine. Must’ve been quite an “a-ha” moment for them. Especially after His passion, death, and resurrection. This is borne out in the Emmaus narrative of Luke 24:13-35, where Jesus appears to the two disciples, and basically enacts the first post-resurrection Mass, liturgy of both Word and Eucharist…where the disciples suddenly see Jesus when He – you guessed it – blessed and broke the Bread.
Works a lot better than the airily dismissive, uncontextual and flatly unscriptural Reformed “oh, he was talking about faith alone in John 6” or your vaguely new-Agey “spiritual” explanation. Neither of which had any adherents until the heresies of 1517.
(end cut/paste)
An addendum on the word “truly.” Jesus uses this word when he wants to convey a “real” or “literal” meaning. Does this mean that in John 6, someone with a sharp knife and a taste for human tenderloin could have had a piece of the saving Jesus there in the synagogue in Capernaum. NO! (this, BTW, is something Barry disgustingly has inferred in the past). The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus offered in the form of human-consumable Bread and Wine, in conjunction with the Passion, timed for maximum human understanding as I have outlined above. Important to note, in John 10:7, Jesus uses the “truly” modifier when describing Himself as a “gate for the sheep.” Jesus, being both the only portal to the Father and the Good Shepherd, is absolutely justified as describing Himself as a true ‘gate for the sheep.’ Similarly, the flesh on his human body is not literal cannibal food of heaven, but His True Flesh is offered as the human-consumable appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist.
Clifford B (Barry),
Regarding the 10 commandments Jesus taught: “One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.” [Matthew 19:17]”
Why can’t you just listen to Jesus…. and do what He clearly says to do…just like in the quote above? Do we really need sophistical protestant philosophical gymnastics to understand this quote? Or should we rather accept it as a simple child of God…wherein the very scriptures teach simplicity of heart when it says: “Out of the mouths of babes wisdom is made known”.
note: This was a response to Barry’s Oct. 20, comment.
He sure is long-winded, ain’t he? Some people never learn, that Lenin’s dictum of “quantity has a quality all its own” often does not apply to apologetics.
Poster AWLMS says: “Regarding the 10 commandments Jesus taught…But if thou wilt enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.” [Matthew 19:17]”. Why can’t you just listen to him?
I answer: I’m the one that’s listening to him by comparing and exegeting the Text in accordance with other verses, which proves you 100% wrong (1 Cor 2:13). You have a deaf ear and just can’t grasp the fact that if it is true (and it is) that God has eliminated the 10 commandments as a means of salvation (verses cited, but ignored), then Jesus Christ was not teaching that man to keep the commandments for salvation! I will not go further with this as it’s obvious you haven’t done a stick of research and refuse to “rightly divide the word of truth” as instructed. Honestly, you think you’re such hot stuff that you allege to even know my last name, oh thou crystal ball gazer! LOL!
It’s not your last name, Barry, it’s your first name.
Unless you have a twin brother with your same personality and wacky protestant philosophies. But, in any case you’re a good comedian. As usual.
“Unless you have a twin brother with your same personality and wacky protestant philosophies. ” > I think he’s starring – in a hockey mask – in the latest incarnation of the “Halloween” movie series.
Quite obvious that Clifford is Barry, but let’s dive into his quantity of lies and taking things out of context anyway.
Cliff the Chihuaha said: Thankfully, the sword of the Lord (Scripture) stabs your position to death, for we see the very same general theme used elsewhere with NO “traditional” element in view, and therefore, immediately nullifies your claims about tradition in particular being equal to the written word of God. Nice try. You lose.
Seems you lose here. Can you show me from Scripture where Scripture is referred to as the sword of the Lord? Because Hebrews 4:12 makes it clear the Scripture is not the sword of the Lord. Or did you go outside of Scripture to reach your erroneous conclusion Cliffy?
Chihuaha said: We are to compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13)
Let’s see what that verse actually says.
1 Corinthians 2:13: And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.
This verse says nothing about comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Chihuaha said: as it alone is able to “fully equip” the Christian for their task (2 Tim 3).
Let’s see what 2 Timothy 3 actually says. I have no doubt that Cliffy has somehow twisted the Epistle of Paul here.
2 Timothy 3:
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work..
Hmmm. Strange. I see equipped, but I don’t see the word fully in this passage. Seems our Protestant friend Clifford is back up to his old tricks and has done what his ancestor Martin Luther did. Adding words to God’s Word to have Scripture say what he wants it to say, not what Scripture actually says.
This passage shows your ignorance of Scripture though Clifford, for who is the “Man of God?” Most Protestants assume it is talking about all who profess belief in Christ. But the Scriptures Timothy knew from his youth would be the Old Testament. And in the Old Testament the “Man of God” is always referring to someone who performs some God given mission, like Elijah, or Moses, but not common believers. Several Protestant commentaries concur with this conclusion. So the “Man of God” referred to being equipped here by Paul is the priesthood.
Clifford said: If Paul cursed the Judaizers by their adding even one thing to the gospel (which is the message of “Jesus Christ and him crucified”, not “Jesus Christ and his playing hide and seek in the Eucharist”) then Luther (and Catholics as well, who have added even more requirements than the Judaizers) are lost.
Since you have added the word fully to equip in the passage, to conform that verse to what you want it to say, seems you are cursed by Paul also.
Now let’s turn to your St. Augustine quotes. Seems you lose again, look what he says about tradition and it’s authority in these passages:
Poster D asks: Can you show me from Scripture where Scripture is referred to as the sword of the Lord?
Reply: Revelations 2:16 says, “…I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
Ergo, the Word he speaks is the sword of the Spirit. Hint: The Bible is the word of God speaking to us, and is therefore, a sword.
You lose.
D then asserts: [I don’t believe you when you say] “We are to compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13). Let’s see what that verse actually says.
Reply: It says, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (NKJ). Apparently, you don’t believe the Bible is spiritual.
Neither do you believe the many examples we find therein of comparing one Text with another.
You lose yet again.
D then objects that the word “fully” is not contained in 2 Tim 3.
Reply: We read, “thoroughly equipped” (NJK).
Needless to say….you lose.
I need not waste my time with anything else you wrote because the casual observer can see you’ve got quite a problem and pattern of posting erroneous info.
Regarding 2 Timothy 3:
1.) This is a personal letter written to Timothy, Paul’s protege/successor bishop, and much of it has to do with those duties. This is not written to everyone, although everyone can gain insight from it
2.) The instruction is supplemental/reinforcement to what Paul has taught him verbally. Note verse 14, “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them”, that is followed by verse 15 “AND that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Paul obviously considers verbal instruction as important as scripture.
3.) Verse 16 follows, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” “Profitable” is far short of sufficient. Furthermore, Paul never says what “all” includes. You’d have to assume he’s talking Old Testament only and the canon his Greek speaking Jews would be familiar with.
4.) Verse 17 follows, “that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse harkens back to Verse 14 that puts the total package as verbal instruction supplemented by scripture, and the conditional “may” leaves it open that that may not be enough to be “complete and thoroughly equipped.”
Conclusion: 2 Tim 3 doesn’t come close to an endorsement “sola scriptura”.
Awesome quotes from augustine, Duane.
It is why it is worthwhile paying attention to Joe’s site. I’ve read a lot of Augustine, but various such quotes and spiritual jewels slipped by my attention.
Best to you….you’re and excellent apologist.
Cliffy,
Either you are wrong or Scripture is, because Hebrews 4 clearly says that Scripture is sharper than any sword. Ergo, Scripture cannot be a sword. Ergo, you are eisegeting that passage as usual to fit your narrative.
D then asserts: [I don’t believe you when you say] “We are to compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13). Let’s see what that verse actually says.
Reply: It says, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (NKJ). Apparently, you don’t believe the Bible is spiritual.
Neither do you believe the many examples we find therein of comparing one Text with another.
You lose yet again.
But that verse is not talking about comparing Scripture with Scripture. I suggest you read Aquinas’ commentary on that passage. Just a hint, your interpretation is nowhere to be found. You lose again my Scripturally ignorant little friend.
I will grant you that fully is a synonym for thoroughly, but you do not address the obvious flaw in your statement. Nowhere does Scripture state, as you do, that it alone can thoroughly equip the Man of God. Nor did you address the fact that the Man of God is not the common everyday layman, but actually refers to the priesthood.
I also totally refuted you on Augustine and sola scriptura. You lose again, oh ignorant Cliffy.
Joe, awlms, Duane, et al., I am privileged to be in the company of such as you.
C-Barry, thanks for the entertainment, as ever.
Duane, if Cliff (Baritone Barry) B. had any sense, he would beg you to be his catechetical teacher.
And if Duane isn’t available, then crawl to AK’s door and beg him!
D states: Either you are wrong or Scripture is, because Hebrews 4 clearly says that Scripture is sharper than any sword. Ergo, Scripture cannot be a sword.
I answer: First of all, that the sharpness of the word of God is clearly stated to be sharper than any sword, reminds us that no where are we told of the “sharpness” of tradition. The Bible alone is always the entity that “makes the cut”, and never are any such compliments thrown in the face of tradition. The only reason you want tradition to be equal with Scripture is so you can demand all your unbiblical requirements for salvation to stand supreme and relegate Calvary’s cross to the back burner. I would say yours is an exercise in futility and I’d hate to be in your shoes on Judgment Day.
Second, the fact that the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (plainly found in Eph 6:17) TOTALLY decimates your attempt to take the crown of “sharpness” off Scripture’s head. Thus your statement that the Scriptures cannot be a sword, simply exposes typical Catholic illiteracy on the very Bible they claim to hold dear. But of course you will never admit your error, to me or to your priest in the confessional because Catholics are too proud to do so.
To further squash your ideology, I’ll bet you didn’t know that God so identifies with his word, that we read, “The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh” (Rms 9:17). For Paul, the words of Scripture and the voice and authority of God are ONE AND THE SAME. Hence, when we read in Rev 2:16 that “…I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth”, that sword, Duhhh-wayne, is the word of the Lord, and consequently, so is Scripture.
Again, “out of his mouth went a two-edged sword” (Rev 1:16). Again, ‘out of his mouth goes a sharp sword” (Rev 19:15)
It doesn’t make a BIT of difference if Heb 4:12 says the word is sharper “THAN” any sword (as if to convey it isn’t a sword at ALL) because it is categorically and metaphorically referred to as a sword in four other places! (Eph 6, Rev 2:16, 19:15, 19:21). God is under no obligation to be subservient to your stringent demands for something to mean only ***one*** thing at all times and in every place!
D states: Either you are wrong or Scripture is, because Hebrews 4 clearly says that Scripture is sharper than any sword. Ergo, Scripture cannot be a sword.
I answer: First of all, that the sharpness of the word of God is sharper than any sword, once again reminds us that no where are we told of the sharpness of tradition. The Bible is always the entity that “makes the cut”, and never are any such compliments ever given to tradition. Face it. The only reason you want tradition to be equal with Scripture is so you can demand all your unbiblical requirements for salvation to stand supreme and relegate Calvary’s cross to the back burner. I would say yours is an exercise in futility and I would hate to be in your shoes on Judgment Day.
Second, that the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” TOTALLY annihilates your desperate attempts to find fault with my position (Eph 6:17). Thus your statement that the Scriptures cannot be a sword is simply absurd. But of course you will never admit your error, to me or to your priest in the confessional because Catholics are too proud to so so.
To further squash your ideology, I’ll bet you didn’t know that God so identifies with his word, that we read, “The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh” (Rms 9:17). For Paul, the words of Scripture and the voice and authority of God are ONE AND THE SAME. Hence, when we read in Rev 2:16 that “…I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth”, that sword is the word of the Lord, and consequently, so is Scripture.
It doesn’t make a BIT of difference if Heb 4:12 says the word is sharper “THAN” any sword in one place, because it is categorically and metaphorically referred to as a sword in two other places (Eph 6 and Rev 2). God is no obligation to be subservient to your stringent demands for something to mean only ***one*** thing at all times and in every place! For example, the “sword” which will pierce Mary’s heart is utilized as metaphor for sorrow (Luke 2:25). Metaphorically then, it looks like your goose is cooked.
No need to write further since I know I’ll only be called long-winded as before, and neither will you admit your error, so it would be like throwing pearls to the swine.
Casual observers should learn a lesson here: Catholic apologetics are typically for the birds, and must be viewed with suspicion every time one comes in contact with them — as your “pen-knife” theology proves.
Adios.
Let’s add “incoherent and irrationally pejorative” to “long-winded and error-ridden.”
Barry never fails to disappoint.
As suspected, the Catholic simply cannot deal with the biblical evidence against them, so they rename their opponent as well.
Let’s say it again. Scripture is a sword and you cannot change that fact any more than pigs can fly. Your rejection of the clear-cut, sword-like data is indicative of God causing you to believe a lie (2 Thess 2), so I can certainly not fight against that. I must then leave you to your misery.
I suspect “The Catholic” misery will begin to subside as soon as you voluntarily depart this blog, or the Ozark bunker generator becomes permanently inoperative.
‘Bye, Barry….and please, have another deep-fried Twinkie…do it in memory of me….
Cliffy said:
1.) Jesus accepted the authority of the Old Testament, but He also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on a teaching succession from Moses’ seat, which cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the Mishna, which was originally oral.
2.) In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). <strong.But rabbinic tradition does. Paul refers in 2 Timothy 3:8: to “Jannes and Jambres” who “opposed Moses”. These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
3.) Ephesians 4:11-15 says: 11* And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry,* for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,* to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.
15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ,*
In this passage St. Paul indicates that the believer can attain Christian perfection through the teaching function of the Church, and never once mentions Scripture!!!
4.) The Apostles clearly did not believe in sola scriptura, most of them didn’t write anything down. Yet if you knew that after you die what you had written would become the sole rule of faith, wouldn’t you want your teachings written down? In St. Paul’s goodbye address to Timothy, he tells Timothy to guard the truth that has been entrusted by the Holy Spirit. St. Paul is talking about how his teachings are to be preserved once he has died, and never once mentions his writings.
Cliffy the Chihuaha said:
I will hate to be in mine also, knowing but for the mercy of the Lord, what I truly deserve. That being said, I would rather be in mine than yours.
Excellent points Duane.
It seems to me that some protestants are almost obsessively attached to their OSAS doctrines due to extreme fear and worry over Gods wrath, and are sort of skeptical of God’s mercy ( as you mention in your last sentence, above). And because of their great fear of the almighty God that can punish us in an almighty and terrible way, they focus more on escaping this punishment and misery, then on actually loving the God who Jesus taught us to call ‘Father’. Maybe some of these protestants have as had some bad experiences with their own fathers…even as Martin Luther did, and so they might view ‘father’ in a different and negative way than those who actually have had ‘loving’ fathers in their lives? So, psychology has a part to play in the way people live out their faith.
I t also seems that for them, an ‘easy out’ solution to dealing with a ‘wrathful’ and severe God is to just accept that Jesus guarantees that we won’t experience such wrath because He can substitute for our punishment, and nothing can reverse this gift of Christ once they realize that Jesus actually did this for us. For them, to think that it was possible for Jesus to change His mind and for us to be punished with eternal miseries for any reason, would equate Jesus with the same fearful attributes as His Father. And, to them this seems unacceptable. Once Jesus has saved you, there is nothing that can break that new ‘covenant’.
So, basically, they are inventing a new sort of ‘unbreakable’ covenant (..ie.. OSAS), and it gives them the psychological security that they need to have some rest for their souls in this life. And Martin Luther, the original inspiration for this novel theology, was definitely in need of such psychological and spiritual comfort, as neurotic and obsessive compulsive as he actually was during his time.
So, for such protestants, they don’t seem to look to God as a loving Father at all, a Father that they can trust with all their hearts and souls. Rather, they seem to have passed over the many scriptures wherein Jesus taught that God is much more loving than us sinful mortals, and that, for instance, if we asked Him for an egg, he would not ‘give us a deadly scorpion’. And yet, even after reading such scriptures of a loving God, they still seem to fixate on the God of wrath, as found in many other texts of the Bible.
However, if we take all of the teachings and acts of Jesus Christ together, we find in His humanity the most beautiful, loving, concerned, patient, sacrificial, charitable, friendly, ‘Good Shepherd’ and ‘ Good Samaritan’ that anyone could have ever imagined. And, knowing this Jesus is also knowing God His Father, even as Jesus taught: If you have seen me you have seen my Father”.
For all of their (protestants) insistence on believing the scriptures, and even to an obsessive level, they never seem to stress this side of Jesus, that is His ‘Sacred Heart”. They mostly care for what Jesus DID for them, and how it frees them from a possible punishment. Yet, without seeing the goodness of Jesus, they also don’t see the goodness and kindness of God His Father. And this goodness and kindness of Jesus is proved over and over again in the scriptures which details so many miracles, kindly conversations, fraternal correction, infinite patience, peaceful admonition, loving concern…. in everything He did while here on Earth, not to mention His most loving sacrifice on the cross.
Anyway, I always wonder how these protestants always portray one side of the Gospel, focusing on the fear of Hell and eternal misery….and rarely detail the most loving and sacred heart of Jesus who Himself has called us ‘friends’? In this, many of these protestants almost seem to be merely ‘half’ Christians, because their view points are so ‘lop sided’ wherein they ignore the joyful side of Christ’s gospel teachings.
Best to you, and keep up the excellent apologetic and and spiritual lessons you provide in your comments here.
“It seems to me that some protestants are almost obsessively attached to their OSAS doctrines due to extreme fear and worry over Gods wrath, and are sort of skeptical of God’s mercy…”
I have talked to some of the families in my RCIA classes and they have spoken of that situation as having driven them to seek something else. I fear the vast majority just turn secularist, putting every Christian belief in the same rancid pot. God bless the ones who still seek and find.
I have also read conversion stories – and the accounts of cynical atheists – that say as much.
Awlms, both you and Duane are virtuoso apologists…..
Hi Awlms,
Thanks for the kind words from you and AK. Both of you always make me think, and thirst for more knowledge.
The Apostles clearly did not believe in sola scriptura, most of them didn’t write anything down.”
This is exactly the point I was making with Bifford, when I said “give me context, a lifetime of it.” One can claim a man’s *whole life* to be the opposite of what theology and history has judged it to be, on the basis of *one line* of his work, but then that would make one a….fundamentalist.
“I will hate to be in mine also, knowing but for the mercy of the Lord, what I truly deserve. That being said, I would rather be in mine than yours.”
Are we getting shoes on the Last Day? I’d like Rockports. My wife would like Prada, but the devil wears those, so…..Barry can have them..I suspect likes stilettos.
Hi Duane,
I’ve been thinking that many protestants, such as Barry, are so fixated on ‘sola scripture’ that they actually neglect what the scriptures themselves mean and signify, and especially when it comes to the parables. For instance, how does the doctrine of ‘sola scripture’ square with the teaching of Jesus concerning Peter and the ‘keys”.
For instance, consider the Gospel of Matthew 16:19, where Jesus says to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
How can a mere theological concept such as ‘sola scriptura’ bind and loose anything on Earth or in heaven? And is a book (scripture) to be equated with a person? Jesus clearly says “you bind on Earth”…not “what the future scriptures bind on Earth’? Must we interpret ‘Keys’ to signify ‘verses and chapters’ of the Old and New Testament, if we believe like protestants that scriptures are the SOLE authority regarding Christian theology?
Moreover, Jesus also says :
“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28:19)
Until the end of the world Jesus expects His Church to be going out and teaching. He says nothing about scriptures at all. And He says He will be with THEM, signifying that He will be accompanying them and helping them during all of this time. So, if there really is validity for the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ why would Jesus need to be with them and support them if it was the ‘scriptures’ that were sufficient for teaching until the end of the world? Protestants seem to be minimizing the role of both Jesus and the Church when they claim that scripture is the sole authority for Christian theology. This is to say, Jesus isn’t needed to help, inspire or support them in their mission….as it is ‘scripture alone’ is that is sufficient for this task of spreading and teaching Christ to the world.
Such implications of ‘sola scripture’ seem to make the meanings of so many of Jesus’ teachings and parables to be absurd. That is, why do we need ‘keys’ to the kingdom, if we got the Bible ALONE to open it up for us? And, the rock and stones with which Jesus said His Church would be built… would necessarily also equate with the ‘scriptures’ ( I guess the rock an steams would signify verses and chapters?) and not mere persons, such as Peter and his future successors.
Best to you,
Al
typo above….steams= stones
Awlms – I think the bigger issue here is less sola scriptura and more private interpretation or “Scripture interprets itself.” Nothing wrong with Scripture – the entire Catechism can track back to Scripture – it’s the Barry’s and the Peters and the Irkeds all with militantly differing “Scripturally-based” ideas on the path to salvation….all united in just one thing, their ‘you arrogant Catholics, how dare you claim a lock on interpretational authority. ‘ They can’t see the irony inherent in their fractionation. Are there really tens-of-thousands of ways to Heaven? If the clear Eucharistic Narrative of John 6 is open to interpretation, then why not John 14:6…maybe Jesus is a Universal God of everyone, Christians, Muslims and Hindus, so “the Way” includes all those paths?
Confirmation bias is a powerful obscurant…..
AK,
I think you are a little mistaken in this respect. There is essentially no difference between sola scriptura, and solo scriptura. A very good reason why this is, is found in this article that I have linked to, in case you have never read it before.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
“For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world” (John 6:32-33). Jesus also says in John 6:63 that “It is the spirit that enlivens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
This doesn’t sound Eucharistic. It sounds more like Pentecost.
We’ve been through this before Peter.
How is Jesus’ flesh real food? And if it’s not real food, why did Jesus say it truly is? Your belief system makes Jesus a liar right on this verse.
Peter and I went through this-same-exact-topic (John 6:63) two days ago in the “Is the Eucharist Necessary for Salvation?” topic. He completely ignores the difference between “My Flesh” and “the flesh.” Been saying it for somewhere around two years now.
I had fun explaining the lack of conflict between 32-33 and 63, and was met with full-power deflector screens. He assessed me as a “rigid Catholic.” I thanked him for the compliment. He also said, in his opinion, the Church was “not better off” for all it’s “developed doctrine,” implying they should try something new. Maybe Pope Peter Aiello could set right the Barque of Christ. Crystals, anyone?
Peter thinks if he says the same thing enough times it’ll become, like, fact, and he’ll sell more books to New Age Catholics.
LOL. Yup. Same song, different singer. It’s like they are saying:
Duane, I guess one might say, the one most at home in the Invisible Church is….a blind man.
Not everything in the New Testament is Eucharistic. The NT emphasizes the Holy Spirit more than the Eucharist.
Hi Peter,
The Lord used very general parables and analogies when teaching His gospel message so that various spiritual truths and realities could be better comprehended by His listeners, than if He used explicit philosophical definitions which specific definitions have their own inherent problems which most people recognize. And, because He used this strategy for teaching the gospel, Jesus left many things for His future disciples to ‘chew’ on, so-to-say, and thus we are still debating these things that He taught after 2000 years now.
But we must remember that Jesus also spoke explicitly regarding such analogies and parables, and He said to His apostles,
“To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.”
So, we see here that He mean’t that the Church that He founded would have the key to the interpretation of these parables, and which Church would be able to distinguish through spiritual ‘insight’ (i.e….seeing) the core meaning of such teaching so as to teach them throughout all future generations.
In many ways, we find a proof of ‘Tradition’ here, because it is the guidance and wisdom provided by the Holy Spirit that allows the Church to apply gospel truths, and found in parables and spiritual symbolism, to new circumstances as the gospel is preached to all cultures and nations throughout the world.
So, we must trust the Church the Jesus founded to expound on these parables and mysteries. And after 2000 years we have plenty of such teachings. The Church decides what is explicit and symbolic, and it has always done this through Church councils and synods, and also catechetical lessons, and literature such as the ‘Didache’, the ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ and the “Catechetical Lectures” of Clement of Alexandria. In modern times we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So it is here that we find the teachings that we need….even as Jesus told His apostles above: “To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables”.
Best to you.
What you are saying also applies to specific Holy Spirit filled individuals within the Church. Christ was talking to individuals when He spoke those words. Tradition also includes us because we can all contribute to tradition.
There is an interesting quote from Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 8 which states: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.”
The guidance in the Church isn’t only reserved only for the hierarchy. It applies to any Spirit-filled person. Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 12 says: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) [cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27] cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) [Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 17] they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth.”
Did you read context here? You focus on “faithful” and “cannot err,” thinking “me.” The “entire body” is the Church, tradition, the Catechism, the Sacraments, Sacred Scripture. Your diminution of the Eucharist and – I’ll say it again – new-agey focus on the Spirit is a one-off. NOT representative of the whole “entire body” of Catholic belief.
As I said, if it works for you…..
Peter,
And that is why we have a Catechism that summarizes that same Catholic Faith, an is consistent with the teachings throughout Church history, so that we can all be on the same page…in comparison with the myriad of Protestant beliefs and creeds. The Church has history on it’s side. Moreover, the Church was very careful for 2000 years to catalog and document that excellent history. For example, how many inspiring biographies of saints were preserved over all that time? Just open up, or google, ‘Butlers Lives of the Saints’ …and you’ll get a good idea.
After noticing that the catechism was changed so easily by Pope Francis on the subject of capital punishment, it became evident that it is helpful to have a Bible handy when reading the catechism.
It is best to read the biographies of as many Catholic saints as you can find to get a good idea of “The Faith” as it was practiced throughout the ages. This way, the knowledge of the faith will be deep and broad and you will also notice how the practice of the faith can vary in various places and centuries. In the early centuries it’s good to read the lives of the ‘ Desert Fathers’…St. Antony of Egypt, St. Hilarion..etc… Then, St. Benedict, St, Gregory the Great, St. Bede, St. Patrick, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Anselm are good for the first Millennium. Sts. Francis, Dominic, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure are good for the early 2nd millenium. And then Francis Paola, Martin de Porres, John Masias, Rose of Lima, Francis Solanus, Francis Xavier, Ignatius, etc… are good for the Reformation decades.
Anyway, I think you get the idea. It is not only the Bible that teaches the faith, but how the faith has been practiced by those who have loved Jesus throughout the centuries, and we find this through holy biography. Even St. Paul said: “Be an imitator of me as I am of Christ”. And, many other great saints could have said the same. There are so many such biographies and writings of the saints, that it would probably keep a person reading for almost the entirety of their lives to get through even part of them…and is which is why the Vatican library has almost countless books and manuscripts from such saints and holy people through the ages.
Long live the Holy Catholic Faith….as revealed in the lives and writings of the Saints!
Oh Peter….quite a “gotcha” unless one has some background in Catholicism besides what he has internalized from televangelists.
I assume you are familiar (or have at least at one time or another) heard of a fellow named John Henry Newman. Rather famous convert to Catholicism, he promulgates a treatise known as the “Development of Doctrine.” Makes a lot of sense. In the case of capital punishment, the Catholic Church, which is committed to the protection of life from conception to natural death, understood in ages past that state actors sometimes did not have the resources to protect innocent life from evil persons absent a death penalty. The reasoning behind the change is, the world has developed sufficiently to at least and try to meet the goal of abolition of capital punishment while protecting innocent lives from those who would be a threat. SImple and reasonable application of the principle of development of doctrine to the secular practice of judicial punishment.
I note no such Petrine nor Catechetical move towards the Peter Principle spiritual supplanting of the Eucharist with, I dunno, altar crystals, essential oils and private Scripture interpretation. Or so observes your local rigid Catholic.
PA,
“After noticing that the catechism was changed so easily by Pope Francis on the subject of capital punishment…” = notice again, please. Pope Francis didn’t change it; he asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to revise the CCC. This is how the Magisterium works. On the other hand, any reformed pastor can change a doctrine on a wimp, and no one could, thanks to private interpretation and sola scriptura, contest the validity of the new interpretation.
Furthermore, it wasn’t “changed so easily”, inasmuch as the new formulation is built upon “the authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” (Cardinal Ladaria, prefect of the CDF).
I’m much more comfortable in going to a single original source like the Bible than to wade through 2000 years of developed doctrine, especially when the Bible regulates everything in Christianity and is so easily accessible. I have always found it more rewarding to go to the source documents to see what I can glean out of them.
I wonder if Peter will ever tire of bringing the same dull knife to apologetic gunfights?
PA:
“I’m much more comfortable in going to a single original source…” = if you are referring to the Protestant Bible, then your “single original source” is about 10% smaller than the actual source.
“…especially when the Bible regulates everything in Christianity” = what is the Bible’s stand on death penalty?
“…to go to the source documents…” = If you had the “source documents”, you would be the richest man on Earth. Incidentally, do you read/write Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
I can read English. I don’t have the original manuscripts. The Catholic and Protestant New Testaments have the same number of books. If the English isn’t clear, there is lots of reference material associated with the Bible. There are lexicons that translate the English words back into the original languages. There are concordances to look up specific words and phrases.
The Bible’s stand on the death penalty is found back in Genesis 9:6 where it says: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”. God said this to Noah roughly 1500 years before the Mosaic Law. This sounds like the death penalty is required because of the dignity of the human person.
My mood determines my original source. If I have had a bad day at work, I go to The Murderers Bible (1801), before I clean my guns. If the wife is partic’larly obstreperous, I peruse my Wife Beater’s Bible (1549). If I feel like cheating someone out of something, I go to my Wicked Bible (1653). There’s more, but you get the idea. All very Protestant, and very convenient to my theology de jour. Peter understands.
Catholicism, with it’s obvious and pervasive disregard of Scripture (according to PA) has been a bit more….meticulous….in its translations. Douay-Rheims, anyone?
We need to have well-formed consciences. I got my Douay-Rheims back in Catholic grammar school. We were all required to buy one. I even referred to it as a young child. Someone at the Catholic high school that I attended told me that I would make a good Protestant.
PA:
“The Catholic and Protestant New Testaments have the same number of books” = your original post refers to “the Bible”, not the NT.
“If the English isn’t clear…specific words and phrases” = two points, if I may: a) if you use a Protestant Bible, your reference material will still be limited (authoritatively) to about 90% of what a Catholic Bible can refer; b) every translation is an interpretation. Even if translating “English words back into the original languages” is theoretically possible, cultural nuances and backgrounds make it virtually impossible to fully comprehend the original meaning.
“The Bible’s stand on the death penalty is found back in Genesis 9:6…” = this is one of the Bible’s stands on the death penalty. Genesis 4:15 is another.
“This sounds like the death penalty is required because of the dignity of the human person” = here you assume that “dignity of the human person” applies only to the victim. Pope Francis argues that the perpetrator as well as the right to his/her dignity as a human person.
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1Corinthians 13:12). We try to understand things the best we can.
If God thought that the death penalty was against human dignity, there would not have been so much of it ordered in the Mosaic Law; and God would not have done so much killing on His own.
“The Catholic and Protestant New Testaments have the same number of books.”
The Bible’s stand on the death penalty is found back in Genesis 9:6 where it says: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”.”
The OT, counts, I guess, except when it doesn’t.
“We need to have well-formed consciences.”
Mine tells me to mix me up a truckload of 50 gallon oil drums of KoolAid with cyanide, and bid my followers, swig away. I bet I can find a Bible verse that justifies me.
“Someone at the Catholic high school that I attended told me that I would make a good Protestant.”
I would not have taken that as a compliment, Your mileage obviously varies.
“If God thought that the death penalty was against human dignity, there would not have been so much of it ordered in the Mosaic Law; and God would not have done so much killing on His own.”
Do you not understand the purpose behind Mosaic Law, and its origin – as in, Moses, who promulgated it as a sort of boot camp for the disobedient Israelites? And that those Levitical laws no longer apply (as in Mark 7:15 and Matt 15:11, and the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15)? Do you really see no difference between the way God has covenanted with humanity in the Deuteronomic OT and post-Triduum NT? Is it possible your understanding of the story of salvation in Scripture is that limited, essentially on the Bill Maher level?
I know that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law for righteousness. Genesis 9:6 is before the Mosaic Law. Notice that the letter from the Council of Jerusalem to the Gentiles told them to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29). Genesis 9:4 says to not eat meat with blood in it. The Gentiles were told that they would do well in abstaining from blood. I see a connection there.
PA,
“We try to understand things the best we can” = irrelevant and contradicting of your original point (“…the Bible regulates everything in Christianity and is so easily accessible”). You are now saying (as also affirmed in 2 Peter 3:16) that our understanding may not be correct (paraphrasing). Therefore, your understanding may lead you to err, by your own admission. One should then see the wisdom of the Church in using all resources available: all of Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15), interpreted by a community of like-minded believers (Proverbs 15:22) guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13).
“If God thought that the death penalty was against human dignity, there would not have been so much of it ordered in the Mosaic Law” = Actually, you are the one saying that “I know that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law for righteousness. Genesis 9:6 is before the Mosaic Law”. Genesis 4:15 precedes Genesis 9:6, and it shows how God adjusts His teachings and mandates due to human nature (Matthew 19:8).
“…God would not have done so much killing on His own” = perhaps you fail to comprehend that God owns it all. He is not bound by laws. We are at His disposal. As harsh as this may sound, one cannot comprehend Scriptures until he/she understands this simple principle. Furthermore, please see Isaiah 55:8.
When we have the Holy Spirit we are also individually part of the Body of Christ and have the mind of Christ (1Corinthians 2:12-16); and we contribute to the whole. We can individually “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1Thessalonians 5:21); yet, there will be those who pervert Scripture to their own destruction; but not every person will. Do we exclude our personal interpretation of Scripture when forming our consciences? If we did, the Church’s own teaching on the role of conscience would be compromised. I believe that we would also be quenching the guidance of the Spirit in our lives.
There’s a lot of obfuscation and deflection here, from the original – and deeply flawed – thought that drove the thread, that since the Catechism can be changed on the whim of one man, one needs have ones’ Bible handy to prevent (one would assume) precipitous descent into Catholic error. The refutation was never answered, save with more ‘we need private interpretation because, we need private interpretation…’
Peter, everyone here reads the Bible and as St. Jerome said (paraphrase) “meditates on the Sacred Page.” Catholics realize and internalize that in case of question or conflict between one’s’ own reading and that of Mother Church, the Church prevails.
Your mileage varies and that’s your issue. The fractionation of Christianity stands as testimony to the error of individual interpretational supremacy.
When there is a conflict between one’s own reading of the Bible and that of current Catholic teaching, deferring to the current teaching of the Church violates Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae 2 and 3 on the place of personal conscience. This constitutes external coercion and violates our psychological freedom. We are not to be restrained from acting according to our consciences.
“Dignitatis Humanae 2 and 3 on the place of personal conscience. ”
Soooooo…the Catholic Church produced a document specifically purposed with undermining its own Magisterial authority. Rii-iiight. Logic right out of the Barry “Augustine was a proto-Calvinist, look at this hyar one-line of his work that proves it….” school of apologetics.
The confirmation bias is strong in this one, Luke….
I invite anyone here to read the subject document and come away with *any other* reasoned reading than, an exhortation to secular governments to protect religious freedom.
I don’t believe that your opinion is unanimous.
“Pay attention to these words from Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1969 commentary on section 16 of Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”
Peter, once again you’re stretching the rubber band to fit around the warpage of your own personal “conscience” interpretations, which have little to do with Catholic dogma. Understand Ratzinger’s nuanced view of “conscience.” Conscience is about moral choices, not about reinventing dogma.
Per the CCC 1778 “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed.” Nothing about inventing one’s own theology in general, and in particular, denigrating the dogma of the Eucharist to some second or third-rate sacramental place behind Aiello-invented, ill-defined (but undoubtedly appealing to the theologically vulnerable) new-agey spiritualism.
Unless you’re completely self-deluded, ask yourself if it is within the realm of believability that Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, meant in this screed that Peter Aiello’s Eucharistic inventions would have *any* value or truth beyond the few square centimeters inside Peter Aiello’s cranium?
Cherry-picking out-of-context doesn’t work, whether it’s Scripture or Church doctoral writings. But I expect you to keep at it. Expect more pushback.
What if you believe that a specific dogma is immoral or detrimental?
Peter – Pope Francis did not change church teaching on capital punishment. He simply changed some words in the Catechism which lead many to believe that Church teaching has changed. Church teaching on capital punishment remains the same as it was prior to Pope Francis’ word changes in the Catechism.
https://cuf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/18-09-24-Capital-Punishment-Catechism-Statement.pdf
“What if you believe that a specific dogma is immoral or detrimental?”
I smell a gotcha, but what the heck, I’ll bite.
In any conflict between your private interpretation and accepted Catholic dogma, start from the assumption you are wrong. You need to understand why you are wrong. This is not personal against you. I follow the same rule. Because I firmly believe in matters of dogma, the Church is infallible.
Speak to a priest – maybe several. Consult the many sources available. Last resort, come to Shameless Popery – we’ll set you straight 😉
Fair enough.
PA,
thank you for acknowledging the Scriptural roots of the Eucharist.
Since PA will not respond when I said this:
I can only assume this: Let’s say PA has a daughter and I asked her to babysit my kids, and I said I would truly give her real gold as payment when she was done. In PA’s world it would seem to be perfectly alright if when his daughter was done, I gave her a can of corn as payment. See that can of corn is symbolic of real gold. And when I said truly? Well if Jesus can mean something else than how everyone else defines truly, well than so can I.
I could get used to defining things as I please.
It is a very crucial point that you made, that “spiritual” does not mean invisible/incorporeal, but rather something like “divinized”. This is important because when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, and Jesus spoke about “worship in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:19-24), this did not mean Jesus was going to institute a non-liturgical worship (an oxymoron), wherein you worship however you please in the invisible silence of your heart, nor having in mind the Protestant notion of Glorified Bible Study on Sundays. Rather, with the proper understanding of “spiritual,” Jesus was saying the Mass would be the ultimate worship and not restricted to the hill in Jerusalem.
It sounds like Jesus was saying that people would eventually worship in spirit and in truth as opposed to worshipping in Jerusalem or on the mountain. He may have been alluding to the Holy Spirit which was poured out at Pentecost when He spoke of spirit. Truth could refer to Scripture. Neither one places importance on location. The Spirit is not confined to a building; but it resides in the Christian who takes it to Mass and everywhere else.
Whatever the merits of either side, Protestant or Catholic, Christianity is ill-served by the childish invective and insults in the preceding comments. The evidence is not conclusive on either side, the proof of which is the fact that people with ardent faith cross the aisle all the time. We are all believers in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of the Scriptures. That should make us brothers in the faith.
Indeed you are right, as others were before you. But these are the traps men make for themselves when they pretend to usurp the powers of God, when they claim the right not only to extrapolate from Scripture, but to dictate which is the correct extrapolation!
If Christ had meant to define Holy Communion He would have done so. If He had meant to define the Holy Trinity, He would have done so.
He did not, and who then are miserable mortals to pretend to do so?
When a king gives his servant a task he does not require that his servant inquire into his master’s parentage or to make arcane deductions as to the intent behind his instructions.