Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Question for Protestants in this group
Bryn, thank you for initiating one of the most successful discussions this group has ever seen!In terms of what Clark said about posting large proof texts, no one is going to say you can't do that. The way we see the purpose of the group is for us to hash out ideas. Our debates would not be as fun if we all copied and pasted our favorite theologians! Haha.
The discussion has been about the Bible, but veering into a discussion of the Pope makes sense as that is really what the discussion is about. Our disagreement is more along the lines of:
1. When Jesus called Peter the rock, was he initiating the papacy as we know it today?
2. When Jesus founded a church, was it the Roman Catholic church or something else?
I am comfortable with Peter being the rock. He was clearly the lead disciple in the beginning. That has little to do with the later primacy of Rome. Speaking of that, I don't have any sources for the equality of churches in the early church other than to say every history book I have read is pretty clear that it was centuries until Rome could claim supremacy and actually have it. Even then, until 1054 when East and West split, Constantinople disagreed. In the year 150 or 200 or 250 or 300 the bishop of Rome may have claimed to be the top dog, but it was by no means agreed upon.
Also, it seems your assumption is that to accept one thing from church tradition (the formation of scripture) means we must accept EVERYTHING in Roman Catholic tradition.
In other words, in response to, "How do you know without a Pope, which books are in the Bible?" we could respond, "Why does accepting the Bible that the early church adopted mean we must accept everything the Roman Catholic church later taught?"
We all need to be very careful WHAT we put our faith in.I do not expect any human on this planet to be capable of spiritual or theological perfection - especially not the Pope. Sorry Benny!
1 Thessalonians 2:13
"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."
It's all about Jesus after-all.
Bryn, I love the conviction and determination that you bring with your arguments!Reminds me of myself as a teen.
In answer to your question, I don’t trust anyone to make that judgment call of what books are inspired. I study the books for myself, including historical background, original language and culture, authors or most likely authors, etc… and then decide if there are any inconsistencies or reason to question the teachings.
The Bereans searched the scripture for themselves to see if what Paul said was true and were called “of more noble character” because of it.
Now you are telling me that I am not capable of searching scripture and I need one of your “official” representatives to do my thinking for me. In fact, the official Catholic Church’s stance is that if I do not follow their hierarchy then I am going to hell. This was recently reiterated by the Pope.
Several other religions have told me (most exclude the hell part) the same thing. Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Church of Christ and several other exclusive offshoots of Christianity tried to convince me that I can only understand scripture through them. The only thing I can see that they have in common is that they all have a lot of theology that is contrary to scripture and this is the only way they have of combating those pesky questions that point out such.
The mainline denominations do not espouse such teachings that require you to be a part of their exclusive club to make it into the Kingdom of God. Most of us believe that if you follow Christ’s teaching about salvation you will make it no matter what denomination you might be or what hierarchy you follow.
You really have to ask yourself why we would be so open and encourage study of the Bible and Catholicism discourages it. You will be responsible for your salvation when you stand before God. Are you seeking God and truth or are you seeking to prove Catholicism? I have been guilty of promoting what I was indoctrinated with in the past. Jesus promised, “Seek and you will find”. I encourage you to seek the truth, and God will be faithful to keep his promises. I know because I have left a good portion of what I was taught behind as I have earnestly sought to know what is real.
My tactic is to pray first for God to show me the truth concerning a topic, and then study the Word as exhaustively as I can remaining open to the Holy Spirit to guide me.
As far as convincing any of us in this forum that we have to have someone tell us how to interpret scripture, I would say you have about a snowball’s chance in purgatory of accomplishing that ☺
Good try though!
Hmmm, not sure if I follow you there Bob and I am feeling feisty so I just might come to Bryn's support :)I don't think Bryn is telling any of us that we need to have someone interpret scripture for us (your last paragraph). The question is, how do we know which books are in scripture in the first place?
In answer to your question, I don’t trust anyone to make that judgment call of what books are inspired. I study the books for myself, including historical background, original language and culture, authors or most likely authors, etc… and then decide if there are any inconsistencies or reason to question the teachings.
Really? Can you clarify this? Are you saying you read every book ever written to determine which ones are scripture? Or just every religious book? Are you saying that we should start fresh in every generation and attempt to define which books are scripture?
When we say "I don't trust anyone to make that judgment call...", well, we're just being dishonest. When you purchase a Bible you are trusting someone (the editors, your pastor, the publisher, Christian tradition) that the books in there are inspired by God, are the canon. The fact is that there was a church before there was a 27 book New Testament. Bryn's question is, how do we know which books belong in it?
Bryn is very open in trusting the Roman Catholic church for that decision.
Drop the word "Roman" and I would say I am comfortable trusting the catholic (universal) church for that decision (as Clark has explained above).
I'm kinda of surprised, too, Bob. I'd like to know one book in the Bible that you think is not inspired, and one outside the Bible that you think is.
OK David, I do need to clarify. I got ahead of myself a bit.
When referring to books, I mean books that are currently in the Bible accepted by the majority of protestants. I have studied the history and debatable parts of quite of few of the Apocrypha and other books accepted by others over the years. I don’t see anything that would make them a valuable addition as they are at best, repetitious of what we already have and at worst, contrary. When I get Jesus teachings mastered I will look harder into the fringe books :)
It is definitely a judgment call and one that I will reserve for myself.(I am just not a real trusting person when it comes to my eternal destiny)
One important point to make here is that our Bible is not the same as the one approved in the Council of Carthage(which the Bishop of Rome did not attend). We do not have the Apocrypha that were included in the Council of Carthage and there are even differences in the books we do both accept. Changes have been made in our Bibles even in the last 100 years as we get older and more complete manuscripts. It is an ongoing process.
I don't think Bryn is telling any of us that we need to have someone interpret scripture for us
I took these statements from Bryn to mean just that: “The genius of the Papacy is that without a Pope, we would have no way of knowing how to interpret scripture. You wouldn't know who's interpretation is right. Jesus knew this, and He wanted us to understand what He was telling us in the Bible, so He set up the Pope, to guide the Chruch.” And
“the Holy Spirit simply will not allow these men to teach error officially in their capacity of leader of the Church, and none of them ever have.”
Basically that is saying they have divine rights to interpret scripture and laypeople have no right to interpret for themselves.
This is the official stance of the Catholic church that “regular” people have no right to interpret scripture. They went so far as to officially ban Bible reading without express permission and later written permission from the 13th to the 20th century. They reversed their position on Bible reading early in the 20th century, but not on interpretation.
I noticed that she did disagree with the Vatican when she said that “I agree that there are true Christians, and doctrines, among all Christian denominations.”. The Pope recently(last few years) declared that if you are not in the Catholic church you are lost.
So, she may very well disagree with the official Catholic stance on interpretation of scripture and I may be reading more into her statements than she meant.
Where do you stand on this Brin?
Lee, I think anyone who interprets and studies scripture in depth long enough will run across discrepancies. I usually don’t talk about them because of the detrimental effect that it can have on many Christian’s faith. And, quite frankly it would be used by those who try and deconvert Christians. I would rather let them use the weak arguments that they have now :)
Truthfully I don’t think the discrepancies I have seen in the Bible(NIV, KJV, NLT, etc…) we use justifies throwing out any of the current books. The judgment calls made have been pretty solid.
Well said Bob. I agree with you.Is it possible that Bryn is giving the job of the Holy Spirit to the Pope?
Did not the Catholic Church go back and forth about the official stance of the Apocrypha?
I went and read a study of the worst Popes in history. Also the times when there was more than ONE Pope. Fascinating - To claim they were theologically infallible is amusing. I think you can safely say some of them weren't even Christian.
Quote:
" In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-Five Theses, condemning what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation.
Fair enough Bob, my misunderstanding. And you are right about those quotes from Bryn; I just meant that the point of the thread (despite any tangents we all may go on) was to discuss how we know which books are in the Bible.As for the Apocrypha though, that is irrelevant in Catholic-Protestant debate. By that I mean, the theology that separates the two is not found in the apocrypha (except for a vague reference to praying for the dead). If you include the Apocrypha, you don't change much and if you exclude it you don't change much (I am pretty sure Norm Geisler, Rod's favorite, basically said this in his book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals).
Rod asked if Bryn was giving the job of the Holy Spirit to the Pope. My understanding of Catholic theology is that the Pope is in the line of Peter (the first pope) and is Christ's representative on earth. I believe that Catholics believe all people who are Christians have the Holy Spirit (it is the Holy Spirit helping us do those good works that we all debate whether have any saving value or not!). Perhaps the Pope is just more filled with the Holy Spirit than anyone else, thus the possibility for infallibility.
Rod, I agree with you there were a lot of bad popes...and I imagine Bryn and all Catholics agree. But this does not automatically mean they are not theologically infallible. A Pope could have a mistress and lead an army into war and still teach correct doctrine. When Catholics say Popes are infallible they do not mean (again, as I understand) the Pope is infallible in terms of living a moral life or beliefs about science or nutrition or economics. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, specifically on theological matters.
I am not Catholic and I am not saying I buy it. But I am not sure that immoral popes is a refutation of papal infallibility.
Bob wrote: "Lee, I think anyone who interprets and studies scripture in depth long enough will run across discrepancies. I usually don’t talk about them because of the detrimental effect that it can have on many Christian’s faith. And, quite frankly it would be used by those who try and deconvert Christians. I would rather let them use the weak arguments that they have now :)"Aw, c'mon, give us a hint! You have my rapt attention! ;)
Bob wrote: "Truthfully I don’t think the discrepancies I have seen in the Bible(NIV, KJV, NLT, etc…) we use justifies throwing out any of the current books."
Neither do I, of course! That would be a crime!
Hi guys! I just got back from http://www.chulavistaresort.com/ (Dude, best waterpark EVER!!! :D)Anyways, I will now begin reading through the posts.
Clark wrote: "You have repeatedly asked the same question, "How do you know without a Pope, which books belong in the Bible?" in a manner that suggests no satisfying answers have been offered. In reality, some pretty decent responses have been proposed. I have two favorites. First, because the Protestant Reformation was well over a thousand of years after the founding of the Church (be it with Peter or Jesus as the cornerstone) all history prior to it is shared by the Global Church regardless of their ilk. And secondly, an acceptance of the Cannon of Scripture may display confidence in the early Church Fathers, but does not necessarily convey confidence in the current leaders of the Roman Catholic Church."So, to summarize, you are saying that your "favorite responses" to my question are:
1. We know what books belong in the Bible because the Global Chruch told us.
2. We know what books belong in the Bible because the Church Fathers told us.
Really? Assuming you mean the body of Christians by Global Church, that never happened. There was no council in which lay people decided what books should go in the Bible.
Really? The Church Fathers never had a council where they decided what books should be in the Bible. In fact, they didn't agree. For example, Origin didn't think 2nd Peter was inspired.
It's also worth mentioning that the Church Fathers accepted the Pope's authority.
Besides that, what makes you think that the Church Fathers were infalible?
BTW, I'll tell you right now, I don't have a lot of time to post today, but I'm not avoiding anyone. Just wanted to tell you that I can't reply to everyone today!Thanks for your patience!:D
Clark wrote: "One last thought, copying and pasting large proof texts isn't the same has having a genuine discussion where all parties are willing to consider the thoughts and opinions of everyone else involved. We could all go copy and paste a bunch of stuff, but the process would seem rather pointless."I agree a thread with ONLY articles wouldn't be fun, and should be avoided. But from time to time, I'm going to post articles, when I think they explain better than I could what I'm trying to say.
David wrote: "Bryn, thank you for initiating one of the most successful discussions this group has ever seen!"Thank you for particpating!:D
David wrote: "The discussion has been about the Bible, but veering into a discussion of the Pope makes sense as that is really what the discussion is about."I don't see how it does make sense. I have no problem discussing the Pope. When I said "I believe in the Pope" I was simply stating why I believe a certain set of books belong in the Bible. I wasn't looking for a Pope debate. I'm not angrey that we got off topic, but I think we should now get back on topic, and perhps start a thread on the Pope, since there seems to be great interest in debating that topic.
I mean, I already know you all don't believe in the Pope. That's why I'm asking the reasons you accept his New Testemant. (general statement)
David wrote: "In the year 150 or 200 or 250 or 300 the bishop of Rome may have claimed to be the top dog, but it was by no means agreed upon."What makes you say that? Is there an article, or letter for example, you can post as evidence?
This article would appear to be saying an awful lot of people agreed on who was the top dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus
David wrote: "In other words, in response to, "How do you know without a Pope, which books are in the Bible?" we could respond, "Why does accepting the Bible that the early church adopted mean we must accept everything the Roman Catholic church later taught?" I never stated you should accept everything the Roman Catholic church later taught.
Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't mean to be rude. But "How do you know without a Pope, which books are in the Bible?" is a simple question. One I'd think as a Protestant who places so much trust in the Bible, you'd be prepared to answer. So it suprises me when you respond with another question.
Rod wrote: "It's all about Jesus after-all." Agreed.
Bob wrote: "Bryn, I love the conviction and determination that you bring with your arguments!"Thank you! I'm touched.
Wow, you guys are all so nice on here. I'm impressed!
I"d like to add that you are all great debaters as well!
Bob wrote: "In answer to your question, I don’t trust anyone to make that judgment call of what books are inspired. I study the books for myself, including historical background, original language and culture, authors or most likely authors, etc… and then decide if there are any inconsistencies or reason to question the teachings."Let's say a girl read what you wrote above. We'll call her Lisa. Lisa took your message to heart, and decided she agreed with you. Lisa is lesbian, and an animal rights activist. Lisa went through the books of the Bible, and found "reason to question" the books that condemed homosexuality, as well as "reason to question" the books that said animal killing was acceptable for any reason. Her reasoning was that a loving God would not object to gay love, and would not support animal murder. She declared those books weren't inspired. Lisa decided that she would include the book 'The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights'in her Bible, and also decided to add an article written by a Christian woman who was defeneing lesbianism. She called the collection of books 'The Lisa Bible'.
Is The Lisa Bible inspired? If not, how so? She used your systym!
I think Clark's answer (which you offer your refutation of) is a great answer. In your post (63) you say the church fathers never agreed on which books were in the canon (never is a strong word; they agreed in 367 with Athanasius' Easter Letter and, more or less, thereafter). We Protestants do not feel we need a council, we feel the NT canon is a legacy of the Christian church that developed over time. In the same way, they did not agree on the primacy of the Pope either. Your link in post 67 simply points to a list of bishops of Rome. No one is disputing there was a bishop of Rome. My point is that the bishop of Rome in the early church is not the same as the bishop of Rome (pope) today.
Richard McBrien, a Catholic author in his work on Catholic theology writes, "During the first five centuries the church of Rome gradually assumed preeminence among the churches. It intervened in the life of distant churches, took sides in theological controversies, was consulted by other bishops on doctrinal and moral questions, and sent delegates to distant councils. The church of Rome came to be regarded as a kind of final or supreme court of appeal as well as a focus of unity for the worldwide communion of churches. The correlation between Peter and the bishop of Rome became fully explicit in the term of Pope Leo 1 (d. 461) who insisted that Peter continue to speak to the whole church through the bishop of Rome" (p. 755)
As McBrien said, the office of Pope developed. Like I said above, the first person with power we think of when we think of Popes would have been Leo 1. Again, "bishop of Rome" does not equal "Pope"
And sorry, I see this discussion of the Bible, at least as we've been having it, as rooted in our view of the Church and Papacy (see post 66) . You have said you accept the NT because the Pope said so. In answering why we do not accept the NT on this basis, we are (I am) explaining why I do not see the Pope as authoritative in that way.
In regards to post 67, I really do not have the time to do extensive research. My point is that no one in the early church prior to 400 AD saw the Pope with the power he has today. It is a developed doctrine.
I will refer to the argument Cyprian in Carthage had with Rome, "Cyprian believed the Spirit worked through the concord and unanimity of bishops consulting together in council. No single bishop could dictate to his colleagues." (Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p. 352). Cyprian, a saint, believed no one bishop could dictate. He was arguing with Rome.
The obvious question you ought to ask is: if both the Biblical canon and the office of the Pope developed over centuries, both coming to a fully-formed idea in the late 300s (Bible) and mid 400s (Pope - though from my study of medieval Christianity, there was a longer development on this one) why do we Protestants accept one development (Bible) and not the other (Pope). (Again, this is why I see the two as inter-related.)
The answer would simply be that upon study of the Bible does not support the Papacy. We seek to be always Reforming, always re-examining our tradition in light of scripture (and tradition and experience).
Finally, since you asked again, "How do you know which books are in the Bible without the Pope?" We know because the Holy Spirit working in the lives of men and women in the first centuries of the church brought it together. Its sufficiency has been shown in how, through the Bible, the Spirit has changed lives and done great things through St. Augustine and St. Patrick, Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi, John Wesley and Martin Luther, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr.
We know because this is the Bible that has been the life-blood of the Church (NOT the visible Roman Catholic church, but the invisible church of Christ that includes, but goes well beyond, the RC church).
Really, I think this is a difference in our underlying philosophies.I see Bryn as wanting an objective answer, an authoritative declaration from someone in...authority.
I see my view as more a messy mix: tradition, pragmatism, community, experience. It is flatter, less hierarchical, less institutional then the Catholic church (I am not saying it is better or worse, just wondering out loud if our differences may have other explanations).
Bryn wrote: Is The Lisa Bible inspired? If not, how so? She used your systym! Actually Brin, she did not use my system.
I seek the truth, I seek to find what message God has for me, whether I like what it says or not.
I believe the promise of Jesus when he said, "seek and you will find", and
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?... how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
Lisa sought her own agenda, to justify her actions and convince others of her personal dogma(pun intended). People do this everyday without compiling their own Bible.
People find what they seek, just like Jesus said.
I have to ask you Brin, what is it that you seek?
Do you seek God? You should ask yourself that everyday and every time you study the Word.
I think you did point out an intrinsic flaw in my system, because most people have an agenda. A pet doctrine they are trying to prove or a denomination they are trying to further. I have been one of those people in the past, until God slapped me down and made it clear who I am working for.
I know my own heart and as long as I am seeking truth I believe I will find it. This is why I don’t trust anyone to make that canonical decision, because I know that even good hardcore Christians can still have agendas that blind them to the truth.
Here's an interesting thought:what authority has the Pope had or used since the choosing of the Canon then Bryn?
All I see over the last 1500 years is Christian chaos and variety. I don't think this is a bad thing - God can easily work through our messy hearts. Even the characters in the Bible lived through theological chaos (David, Samson, Solomon, Jonah, Moses etc.) Spiritual mistakes are always being made - Even by Peter the ROCK.
If any Pope has spiritually helped Jesus keep humanity on track then that's GREAT! But I think many people in and out of the Catholic Church have been incredibly important. Have you looked into these other people Bryn?
Bob wrote: "In fact, the official Catholic Church’s stance is that if I do not follow their hierarchy then I am going to hell. This was recently reiterated by the Pope."Even if a Pope did say this (I'd love to see the actual quote) he didn't say it ex-cathedra. The church does not teach that at all. The Church teaches that only people who die in mortal sin enter Hell. There are 3 conditions for mortal sin:
It must be a grave matter that is...
Committed with full knowledge and with...
Deliberate consent.
Sometimes the sinner is able to tell whether they have commited a mortal sin, but only God knows for sure who is in mortal sin. Likewise, only God has the authority to judge.
Bob wrote: "Now you are telling me that I am not capable of searching scripture and I need one of your “official” representatives to do my thinking for me."I never said anything of the sort.
Bob wrote: "The only thing I can see that they have in common is that they all have a lot of theology that is contrary to scripture"Such as?
Bob wrote: "Most of us believe that if you follow Christ’s teaching about salvation you will make it no matter what denomination you might be or what hierarchy you follow." Catholics would agree. However, denominations don't agree on what Christ's teachings are.
Bob wrote: "You really have to ask yourself why we would be so open and encourage study of the Bible and Catholicism discourages it."You have been misinformed.
131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.”109 Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”110
132 “Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”
133 The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’” --Catachism of the Catholic Church
Bob wrote: "Are you seeking God and truth or are you seeking to prove Catholicism? I have been guilty of promoting what I was indoctrinated with in the past. Jesus promised, “Seek and you will find”. I encourage you to seek the truth, and God will be faithful to keep his promises."Bob, I can tell you with my whole heart and soul, that I have earnestly sought the truth, and I have found it without a doubt. I believe, because the Holy Spirit has told me, and shown me, that the Catholic Church is the Church established and willed by my Lord Jesus Christ.
Before I study doctrine, the Bible, or do something hard, I say a prayer.
"O Holy Spirit, beloved of my soul, I adore You.
Enlighten me, guide me, strengthen me, console me.
Tell me what I should do; give me Your orders.
I promise to submit myself to all that You desire of me
and to accept all that You permit to happen to me.
Let me only know Your Will."
I'd encourage you to pray it too. It has brought much peace and joy to my heart.
I don't defend Catholicism to forward an agenda. I defend Catholicism because I feel God has called me to do it, just as the aposltes did. I don't expect what I say to be popular. But I hope that that one person some day will read what God called me to write somewhere, and find the courage to invite Christ into their life, and accept whatever He sends their way.
David wrote: "I don't think Bryn is telling any of us that we need to have someone interpret scripture for us." Correct.
Bob wrote: "I don’t see anything that would make them a valuable addition as they are at best, repetitious of what we already have and at worst, contrary."By what authority do you claim to know what books would be a 'valuable adition' to the Bible?
I feel the need to mention, repetition is commen in the widely accepted bibilical books. Many stories are re-told in the gospels. Jesus Himslef talks about the Kingdom over 100 times! So I don't see how you could say a book doesn't belong because it's repetitious.
Bob wrote: "One important point to make here is that our Bible is not the same as the one approved in the Council of Carthage(which the Bishop of Rome did not attend). We do not have the Apocrypha that were included in the Council of Carthage and there are even differences in the books we do both accept. "I specified in my first post that we were talking about the New Testement (In fact, to avoid a debate on Macabees, in this thread! :D) But valid point.
Bob wrote: "This is the official stance of the Catholic church that “regular” people have no right to interpret scripture." Again, you are misinformed. That is only partially true.
III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79 (128, 368)
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81). (81)
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. (90)
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”83 (110-114)
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. (1101)
1.The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2.The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.”85
3.The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”88 (94, 113)
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.
--Catachism of Catholic Church
Bob wrote: "I noticed that she did disagree with the Vatican when she said that “I agree that there are true Christians, and doctrines, among all Christian denominations.”. The Pope recently(last few years) declared that if you are not in the Catholic church you are lost."Actually, I didn't. I'm not sure what quote you are refering to (again, I'd love to see it), but again that is not what the Church teaches. I'd like to add the below article to what I've already said about mortal sin.
VI. The Necessity of Baptism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. (1129, 161, 846)
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1249)
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (848)
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (1257, 1250)
--Catachism of Catholic Church
Rod wrote: "Is it possible that Bryn is giving the job of the Holy Spirit to the Pope? "I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. But I'd like to respond anyway.
Why is it absolutely impossible that the Holy Spirit chooses to work through the Pope?
Rod wrote: "Did not the Catholic Church go back and forth about the official stance of the Apocrypha? "As far as I'm aware, no she didn't.
Rod wrote: "I went and read a study of the worst Popes in history. Also the times when there was more than ONE Pope. Fascinating - To claim they were theologically infallible is amusing. I think you can safely say some of them weren't even Christian."There was never more than one Pope. At times there was a real Pope, and a fake Pope, both claiming to be real.
I'd like to thank David for explaining perfectly the rest of what I would have said.
"Rod, I agree with you there were a lot of bad popes...and I imagine Bryn and all Catholics agree. But this does not automatically mean they are not theologically infallible. A Pope could have a mistress and lead an army into war and still teach correct doctrine. When Catholics say Popes are infallible they do not mean (again, as I understand) the Pope is infallible in terms of living a moral life or beliefs about science or nutrition or economics. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, specifically on theological matters." --David
David wrote: "Perhaps the Pope is just more filled with the Holy Spirit than anyone else, thus the possibility for infallibility."It is the Catholic belief that the Pope is kept infallible not by being more filled with the Spirit, but by the Will of the Spirit. God, as the all powerful Creator, specifacally prevents the Pope from being able to teach error.
David wrote: "In your post (63) you say the church fathers never agreed on which books were in the canon (never is a strong word; they agreed in 367 with Athanasius' Easter Letter and, more or less, thereafter)."I'm not familiar with the Easter Letter. I'll research it. I was simply pointing out that certain fathers-I mentioned Orgin-disagreed with each other.
David wrote: "In the same way, they did not agree on the primacy of the Pope either. Your link in post 67 simply points to a list of bishops of Rome. No one is disputing there was a bishop of Rome. My point is that the bishop of Rome in the early church is not the same as the bishop of Rome (pope) today. " With the last point I'd have to disagree. The details changed (dress, home, etc.), but I believe the power of infalibilty was always there.
The link was to point out that several people (Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, etc.), as demeonstated by thier quotes, agreed from early on, that even the second Pope, was in fact, the top dog, even then.
David wrote: "The obvious question you ought to ask is: if both the Biblical canon and the office of the Pope developed over centuries, both coming to a fully-formed idea in the late 300s (Bible) and mid 400s why do we Protestants accept one development (Bible) and not the other (Pope)."I didn't ask that, because you'd say "the Pope has no authority, the Bible is God's word." I wanted to know which authority you recognied to be THE decider of what is inspired.
David worte: "And sorry, I see this discussion of the Bible, at least as we've been having it, as rooted in our view of the Church and Papacy (see post 66) . You have said you accept the NT because the Pope said so. In answering why we do not accept the NT on this basis, we are (I am) explaining why I do not see the Pope as authoritative in that way. "(Shrugs). Pope debate it is then.
David wrote: "We know because the Holy Spirit working in the lives of men and women in the first centuries of the church brought it together. Its sufficiency has been shown in how, through the Bible, the Spirit has changed lives and done great things through St. Augustine and St. Patrick, Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi, John Wesley and Martin Luther, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr. "Thank you. That answer I can understand.
David wrote: "Really, I think this is a difference in our underlying philosophies."Yeah. That's a factor.
Bob wrote: "Actually Brin, she did not use my system.I seek the truth, I seek to find what message God has for me"
Lisa did believe with her whole heart that what she did added WAS the truth, and what she did throw out WASN'T the truth.
Holy crap Bryn. You're crazy (in a good way). With the last point I'd have to disagree. The details changed (dress, home, etc.), but I believe the power of infalibilty was always there.
Of course you do, you're Catholic! :)
Seriously though, my point is just (and forgive me for not making it well) that EVERYTHING Christians do has developed. The very first Christians were all Jews who still went to the Temple in Jerusalem, kept kosher and offered sacrifices. Christianity is always developing and changing.
The reason I keep bringing up the Pope is that I see the two issues (Pope and Bible) as related. As I tried to say, both developed. I am not sure you can debate this - see my quote from McBrien. You may believe in retrospect the bishop of Rome always had the same powers he has today, but he didn't. In the same way, Protestants ma say the Bible always had 27 books, but it didn't.
I do think that for us Protestants there is an early emphasis on Rome that should make us at least pause. I do not think it is as unanimous and clear as you think; but I think it is more unanimous and clear than many Protestants think. At any rate, for me the question would be: how do I know which traditions to accept (the Bible) and which to reject (the Papacy).
I'll stick with my quote in post 95 - the Holy Spirit uses these scriptures to testify to Jesus and empower Christians.
David wrote: "Holy crap Bryn. You're crazy (in a good way).The reason I keep bringing up the Pope is that I see the two issues (Pope and Bible) as related. "Thanks! When I have time to type, I generallly take off, lol.
OK. I can't say I see the connection, but I'm far from beyond missing things. :D
You have repeatedly asked the same question, "How do you know without a Pope, which books belong in the Bible?" in a manner that suggests no satisfying answers have been offered. In reality, some pretty decent responses have been proposed. I have two favorites. First, because the Protestant Reformation was well over a thousand of years after the founding of the Church (be it with Peter or Jesus as the cornerstone) all history prior to it is shared by the Global Church regardless of their ilk. And secondly, an acceptance of the Cannon of Scripture may display confidence in the early Church Fathers, but does not necessarily convey confidence in the current leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. The nature of your question is such that those who respond merely need to answer it to their own satisfaction. I am satisfied.
Perhaps it would be helpful to put it in these terms - we were all Catholic once. In fact, the term "Catholic" really just means universal. So in a sense, we are all still Catholic. The theological divide between us has little to do with the Cannon of Scripture.
One last thought, copying and pasting large proof texts isn't the same has having a genuine discussion where all parties are willing to consider the thoughts and opinions of everyone else involved. We could all go copy and paste a bunch of stuff, but the process would seem rather pointless.
I'll probably be chastised by my fellow group members for that last comment, but again - no rudeness is intended. The discussion is a very interesting one and I am quite thankful you have presented it.
Thanks!
Clark