November 16, 2005
The Correlation of Sacred Scripture with Church Tradition
Joachim has once again graced our lowly site and posted an excellent refute to comments made by a fellow blogger. After reading Joachim's comment I felt it worthy of being a post in and of itself. If you wish to review the entire dialogue you can find it at:
10 Questions for "Bible Christians"
Kaffinator,
I have come to give Matthew some assistance in the debate on the correlation of Sacred Scripture with Church Tradition.
From reading your posts, it is clear that you, the “Kaffinator,” believe in “Scripture Alone” as the means to attain salvation, and, therefore, consequently you believe that Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church are “not necessary.” However, your arguments for “Scripture Alone” are insufficient in so much as you misinterpret Scripture, and misunderstand what the Church means by Tradition.
What is Tradition?
In this debate it is important to understand what the Catholic Church means by Tradition. Contrary to the belief of numerous persons outside and even within the Church, the term, “Tradition,” does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, liturgical rubrics or even “avoiding to take a bath for a full week after baptism.” Sacred or Apostolic Tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. It is true that a majority of these teachings overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
Jesus and the Apostles were Pro-Tradition
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3) (Mark 7:9 is parallel). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles (Sacred Tradition) which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs. Let’s look at Matthew 15:6–9, "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Jesus was not condemning all traditions, only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12). Kaffinator, granted you are correct in saying that Jesus used and instructed with passages from the Old Testament often, but He also instructed His followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:9 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They fail to see that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
The Bible denies that it alone is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching compiled in Sacred Scripture that came to them years later. Jesus instructed his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given by Christ the authority to teach; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
How would the apostle make disciples of all the nations? By giving everyone they met a Bible? No, but by preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a serious error to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "‘But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that Peter, who never laid eyes on the Bible, used the word "preached"—that is, communicated orally. The integrity of the oral Word of God endures for the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13). It would not be replaced by a written record like the Bible but rather supplemented and would continue to have its own authority. The truth that the preached word of the Lord would continue to have authority after the passing away of the original apostles is easily seen when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of Sacred Tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
Paul tells what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). Furthermore, the apostle praised again those who held to Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, Sacred Tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
These teachings have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow Sacred Tradition, which is supplemented and strengthened by Sacred Scripture, for Christ said to His apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me.” (Luke 10:16)
Scripture Alone
Kaffinator and many other Fundamentalist and Evangelicals claim that Sacred Scripture is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for salvation and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s Magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In Kaffinator’s view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognizes that Sacred Scripture does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture (See Above about Tradition) The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus Sacred Tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by stating a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). However, these two passages and the significance given to them by Protestants can be thwarted.
First as Kaffinator so graciously brought to the light, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). What does this mean? It means John 30:21 does not prove the theory of sola scriptura but rather only that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Gospel was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, it is common fact and I have already stated that the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
The Protestant argument for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 falls short for their designs just as the verse from John. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against these claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
He wrote:
"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic Epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
In addition, the two verses immediately before 2 Timothy 3:16-17 state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 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" (2 Tim. 3:14–15) Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to Sacred Tradition; the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. In other words when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is really teaching the importance of Sacred Tradition!
Obviously, Protestants might be sold on the belief that Sacred Scripture is solely sufficient for salvation but Sacred Scripture, itself, rebuts the notion of “Scripture Alone.”
Licensed To Interpret?
Here’s the answer, straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to your question on the Catholic Church’s guidelines on the reading and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. There is also a little on the interpretation of Sacred Tradition as well.
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 compose 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
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 (St. Thomas Aquinas)
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).
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.
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
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.
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, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89 (St. Augustine)
III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum Fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
I Am So Confused
I want to clearly establish that the Church under the authority of Peter and his successors, the popes, was given the keys of the kingdom and the guidance of the Holy Spirit by Christ, as attested to by Sacred Tradition and later written down in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, the Catholic Church solely holds the right to the authentic interpretation of the revealed truths of God found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. As seen by Her declaration of Dogmas, such as the Trinity, the Catholic Church exercises this right to propose and expound truths found in the richness of Divine Revelation at the time deemed proper by the Holy Spirit.
So with this said, by what authority do you, Kaffinator, interpret Sacred Scripture? Can you show where you have received the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these matters? And if personal infallibility, as you believe, is granted to each individual in interpreting Sacred Scripture than why does the so-called personal infallible method of interpretation always produce confusion, contradiction, and disunity among Christians. Prime example, the mess Martin Luther and his followers caused in Europe and the world? You yourself said, “The teachings of Scripture are an unending source of riches the depths of which I will never fully explore in this lifetime!,” but later on you say, “My position is that scripture, for the most part, speaks quite plainly, and especially so in the essentials of the faith.” So, the teachings found in the Scriptures reach depths that you as a man will not explore, and yet for the most part Scripture speaks plainly! Are not confusion, contradiction, and disunity the direct opposites of what Christ prayed for at the close of John’s Gospel?
Closing Thought
Peter, the first pope of the Church, speaks of the dangers of personal interpretation of Scripture, “In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)
In truth attested to not by my own personal sanction but by the authority of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
Joachim
Posted by Joe at November 16, 2005 1:27 PM | TrackBack |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I am honored to have been the instigator of a top-level post to DeoOmnis! I responded to Joachim on the original thread but perhaps the conversation is better continued here.
Joachim holds, with poster Matthew and apparently Joe as well, that there are apostolic, essential, yet non-scriptural teachings handed down and only available through the Roman Catholic Church. I have challenged Matthew, and Joachim, and now I broadcast it to the general DeoOmnisGloria community:
Name one.
This is not an invitation to debate. Personally I have no use for debate at this time. But if something is lacking in my faith I most certainly want to know about it and so I call upon my Christian brethren to provide it. If you choose to respond, I do ask that you describe the teaching adequately, show how it is indeed essential to faith, explain (if necessary) why you believe the doctrine cannot be derived from scripture, and note how you came to know that the teaching is genuinely apostolic (i.e. that it was taught by the original apostles). Thank you.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 16, 2005 2:39 PMKaffinator,
I really think that you are missing the point. Joachim is not saying that any given doctrine is "non-scriptural" rather he has clearly shown the necessary relationship that exists between Tradition and Sacred Scripture. So to say that this or that doctrine is "strictly" from Scripture is a mistake.
Apostolic Tradition is a must. We couldn't even claim Scripture to be divinely inspired without full confidence in Apostolic Tradition. What gave those bishops in 392-401 A.D. the right to declare the canon of Scripture, claiming those selected books to be divinely inspired? How do you know that the Gospel of Thomas isn't? They obviously believed and understood that they had been entrusted with that same authority given to the Apostles by Christ, the authority to "bind and loose" both in heaven and on earth. That authority, given by Christ to the Church, is testified to by St. Matthew, St. Paul, etc in what has been declared by that Church as Sacred Scripture, yet it was a reality prior to the writing of a single word of, what the Church would one day declare to be, the New Testament.
So again, Sacred Scripture, while being God's own Word, was given to us by the Church, through the Church, and appropriately in the Church. Thus it is the Church that retains the right to interpret Scripture authoritatively. Does that mean that the Church definitely defines every verse? No. But one's interpretation or understanding of any theological or moral idea or belief taken from Scripture must be measured against the theological and moral doctrines defined by the Church. If there is a difference between the two, then the error is on the part of the individual not the Church.
In Christ,
Joe
Kaffinator,
The Dawn Of The Church
The oral teachings of the Apostles and their successors, also known as Sacred or Apostolic Tradition, existed centuries before the compilation of the New Testament by the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is true to say that all the teachings of the Apostles, most notably the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and the Authority of the Church, were non-scriptural and stood on their own for “oodles” of years before the compilation of the New Testament. As I already pointed out, the purpose of the written Word of God in the New Testament and its later compilation into the Bible was to bolster the oral Word of God that existed from the beginning of the Church. Scripture does not supplant Sacred Tradition but supplements or strengthens it. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture does it say “Scripture Alone.”
On Solid Ground
By what grounds in the fourth century did the bishops of the Catholic Church, the successors of the first apostles, assuredly decide what books warranted recognition as the very Word of God and what books did not? Once they had achieved this first task, on what grounds did they compile these books into the Bible? The Catholic Church received the authority to perform these actions through Sacred Tradition, which held to the reality that Jesus gave authority to the apostles, namely Peter, and their successors to bind and loose and that Jesus promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the binding and loosing. Essentially, the Bible is the product of Sacred or Apostolic Tradition.
He Said She Said
Though you might not recognize it or understand why, you, the “Kaffinator,” believe in “Scripture Alone,” and at the same time downplay and misunderstand what Sacred Tradition is. Here are some telling quotes from your posts: “And so I remain unaware of any teaching which the Apostles (or Christ Himself) passed on, which is essential to the faith, and, and which is not already contained in the Holy Scriptures;” Now I too believe it is wise to look to the traditions (i.e. activities and beliefs) of the saints who followed in the apostles. They have much to teach us! But there is no reason to think that those activities and beliefs are to be placed on an equal footing with what God explicitly reveals to us in Scripture.” You must see that Sacred Tradition is the oral Word of God carried on by the Apostles along with their successors and certainly on an equal plane with the written Word of God, since both are the Word of God. If I come across as disrespectful towards you personally, I apologize, but I do not apologize for being critical of your erroneous ideals and beliefs. Truth is offensive to those who hold and believe what is contrary to truth.
Tidbits
The traditions of the Jewish people and those who taught them were subject to corruptibility, since they were not promised infallibility by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But, Christ taught that the true adherence and practice of Mosaic traditions was worthwhile. In essence, the point I was making was that Jesus did not “reject” the traditions of Judaism but the distortion of them. Regardless, the traditions or the transitory customs and practices of Judaism do not compare to Sacred Church Tradition, which being infallible and incorruptible encapsulates all Church teaching.
A Plain Question
If Sacred Scripture speaks so plainly on teachings of the faith, than why does personal interpretation breed confusion and disunity? It is obvious just from our debate that unity in faith will never come from personal interpretation of Scripture. If God wanted to bring about unity through personal interpretation, He would have entrusted each person with the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, this notion receives no support from Sacred Tradition or Scripture or from the historical fact that everyone’s personal interpretations do not fully mesh. What does receive the support of Sacred Tradition and Scripture is the Authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Consequently the Church has the ultimate authority to interpret Sacred Scripture, interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the same Spirit that inspired Scripture. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church in Her interpretation of Scripture cannot be misled, mistaken or deceived; therefore, recognizing and holding to the Church’s true interpretation of Sacred Scripture brings unity among the faithful.
Joachim
Hi Joe, Joachim wrote:
Sacred or Apostolic Tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. It is true that a majority of these teachings overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
If someone asserts that a majority of teachings overlap with Scripture, then simple logic dictates that a significant minority of teachings exist that do not overlap with Scripture. So it seems to me that you have three options:
- Provide such a teaching;
- Assert that the teaching exists but is esoteric and only to be revealed under conditions I do not meet;
- Withdraw the claim and admit that there are no essential apostolic teachings that are not to be found in scripture and yet are rightly part of the Christian faith.
Even the third option might leave room for the "authoritative interpreter" function of tradition to which you refer, but that is not what I am asking about at present. Remember, this all began when poster Matthew interpreted John 21 as referring to an additional apostolic teachings that Jesus passed on and were for some reason never recorded in scripture. Again, if one actually exists, I beg that you supply it.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 17, 2005 12:43 PMKaf,
Since you continue to work your way around the fact that the New Testament, as the inspired Word of God, was a direct fruit of Apostolic Tradition we will start there.
Here is your "one" doctrine that came from Apostolic Tradition rather then Sacred Scripture - the New Testament being the inspired Word of God. Only John in Revelations makes the claim that he had received what he wrote directly from God, through a heavenly vision.
In terms of the Trinity and other such doctrines, although the basic context can be found in Scripture they did require authoritative intrepretation, namely because they were not "plainly" stated in Scripture. There are plenty of verses that the "individual" intrepreter might claim "prove" that Jesus was not equal to the Father as God, but the Church definitive declared that Jesus was God on par with God the Father. Just study Church history, there was plenty of controversy over such doctrines in the early Church...again, authoritative intrepretation was and is necessary.
In Christ,
Joe
Hi Joe,
You must not have read my earlier exchange with Matthew. I agree that the makeup of the canon can certainly be termed "essential", and perhaps also "non-scriptural" simply because scripture does not list its own canon. Of course there could be some debate on whether the makeup of the canon is indeed non-scriptural; some of my Christian brethren would say the books of the Bible self-attest to their inspired nature. But putting this aside, Matthew and I were able to agree that it is not appropriate to call the canon "apostolic" since there is no reason to think that any one of the original apostles had personally assembled the canon, and passed down this teaching. So the canon does NOT meet all three criteria. Until a teaching that meets all three criteria can be demonstrated, I continue to feel justified in holding that none exist.
(Incidentally, I strongly object to your claim that John is the only one with a claim to have prophesied; in a number of places, Paul indicates he is issuing words or commands directly from the Lord. Peter himself referred to Paul's writings as "scripture", and we can only conclude he meant "scripture" in the same sense that Paul had explained, "all scripture is God-breathed". Finally the gospels themselves, in recording the very words of the Lord, could be considered prophetic in a loose sense.)
And now to my brother Joachim,
You have claimed that, for a period of time, teachings such as the resurrection, the trinity, etc., were apostolic, essential, and non-scriptural, simply because scripture had not yet been written. But you can hardly fail to see that this does not answer to the spirit of my request. Clearly, the apostles spoke and wrote with authority. Clearly, they left scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit for our benefit. Clearly, the worldwide church has received their written teachings and has always referred to them as authoritative (even before any church council ever met to formally adopt them). But are those scriptures complete and sufficient? Or are they lacking in some apostolic teaching, as you and Joe and Matthew say? And if so, what teaching is it, precisely, that the scriptures lack? If you hold the scriptures are not complete or sufficient in their teachings then I feel it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate an apostolic teaching that is not now contained in the scripture that the church has always accepted, as early as we have record.
I most certainly accept your apology. In a similar vein, I'm sure it seems disrespectful to you that I hold that believing RC tradition to be as authoritative as God's word in scripture is erroneous, unscriptural, and damaging to the unity of the church. But I hope you remember that my intent is not to disrespect you or the RCC, but to seek after truth. And of course whether your position or mine is offensive doesn't make either one of them true--that is why we examine the facts and discuss them openly.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 17, 2005 2:00 PMKaffinator,
Let's be clear here. I never stated that there were "additional teachings" as you say. St. John said that there were many other things that Jesus did (i.e., taught by word or example) that were not written down, not me. My argument was summed up in my statement that,"we rely on Tradition (capital "T") to shine light on the Holy Scriptures to illuminate it and help us to understand it in its fullness." This is NOT addition...it is complimentary.
In Truth,
Matthew
I’m in general agreement with Joachim’s response to Kaffinator about the origin and nature of our church’s Tradition. But I hope you’ll allow some clarification about the characters in the gospel narratives from whose lips come “the traditions” against which Jesus offers alternatives, in this case, the Pharisees.
To begin with, I think it is of paramount importance for Catholics (at least) to recognize that the very idea of “Scripture and Tradition” is deeply rooted in 2nd Temple Judaism, and so is not a “Christian” (Catholic or no) invention, or even a divinely inspired notion that God revealed to believers after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The existence of an “oral Torah” was part and parcel of Pharisaic Judaism, and was eventually codified in the Mishnah 160 or so years after Christ’s resurrection. So, even during Jesus’ lifetime, there were the “Holy (Hebrew) Scriptures” and the “Oral Torah.” It is thus, quite natural that God would continue to reveal God’s self in this way to the early believers in Jesus. Equally important is the understanding held by the vast majority of Catholic biblical scholars, that when Jesus was “condemning” “the traditions of men,” he was not making a general-blanket statement about the “Oral Torah.” Rather, like other first century Jews, he was engaged in an ongoing “interpretive conversation” that, like the situation cited by Joachim (Mt 15:3, 6-9), were often “passionate” in character – much like the passionate “conversations” between the two main interpretive groups of Jesus’ time – the houses of Shammai and Hillel. Furthermore, the statement by Jesus at Mt 23:2-3 should not be taken as an accurate description of the “heart and soul” of Pharisaism – to think this is the case is now archaic and contrary to the Church’s teaching.
So, for clarification, I wish to submit a brief article from my Parish’s website. It is part of a monthly series offering insight on the Sunday Gospel readings reflecting the Catholic Church’s present efforts to learn about Judaism from Judaism’s perspective…which was after all, Jesus’ perspective.
Jesus in Context: Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites? Well…Maybe.
In our Gospel readings for the 27th through the 31st Sundays in Ordinary Time (Mt 21:33-43; 22:1-14; 22:15-21; 22:34-40; 23:1-12), we are treated to some rather tough controversies between Jesus and several groups – elders, scribes, Herodians, and Pharisees. To a certain extent in our Gospel narratives, each of these groups collectively represent a form of Judaism that began to emerge after the Temple was destroyed by Rome in AD 70 – namely Rabbinic Judaism.* As we progress through each of the five Sundays in October, the tension between Jesus and these opponents intensifies, culminating in the devastating invective of the 23rd chapter of Matthew directed toward the scribes and Pharisees. The only way however, to make reasonable sense of this visceral polemic (esp. Matthew 23:13-33, a text that is not covered by the Lectionary) is to understand it as reflecting the perspective of Matthew’s Community* – an outsider’s perspective on the early Rabbinic movement which, like the early Christian movement and so Matthew’s community, was drawing out its plan for reconstructing Judaism in light of the loss of Temple and land sometime around AD 90. As one might expect, the stakes were perceived by both groups to be very high, and this comes through in the Gospel narratives in the form of disputatious discourse related from the perspective of believers in Jesus Christ.
As this socio-religious drama has worked itself out over the centuries, the Pharisees get worked over by the short end of history’s stick. Imagine that you are today reading Matthew’s Gospel for the first time, when you come across the Pharisees in the story. Wondering who or what they were, you go for Webster’s New World Dictionary and stumble across the adjective “Pharisaic” and read: “1. of the Pharisees 2. emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of the religious law; self-righteous; sanctimonious 3. pretending to be highly moral or virtuous without actually being so; hypocritical”. Not a positive appraisal by any means. But where do we get our information about the Pharisees?
The common, generally negative appraisal of the Pharisees – who most scholars believe to be the progenitors of the Rabbinic movement – comes principally from the four Gospels, which often use them as a negative example against which to compare Jesus. For example, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus is THE authoritative interpreter of Torah, not the Pharisees (cf. Mt 5:17-40!).
“For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi'” (Mt 23:3b-7).
From this we learn much that apparently corroborates with our dictionary definition of Pharisaic – hypocritical, pretentious, self-righteous, seeking the praise of people. But asking the Gospels to offer a fair portrait of the Pharisees is like asking a Middle School student to describe the character of the bullies that have been beating him up regularly for the last month. A fair and accurate description is not likely to come.
From Josephus* we learn that the Pharisees were actually admired by many. But does this necessarily mean that they sought such admiration? Undoubtedly some did, but that is a far cry from the notion that Pharisees on principle, sought admiration. According to Josephus, the Pharisees were admired because of their high ideals “both in their way of living and in their discourse” (Josephus Antiq. 18.15). To be sure, according to the Leviticus Rabbah* “He who learns with the intention of practicing will be privileged to receive the Holy Spirit,” while for him that does not, it is better that he die in childbirth (XXXV.7). On balance then, most Pharisees likely practiced what they preached! Surely that is worthy of admiration and emulation by all!!
From the Mishnah* we learn that humility was high on order for Pharisees. Hillel* related that “a name made great is a name destroyed” (Mishnah Avot 1.13), and that loving and pursuing peace, loving humankind and bringing them near to the Torah is of great import (Mishnah Avot 1.10). Shammai* is remembered for the maxim “Say little and do much” (Mishnah Avot 1.15). Good motive and intention was on order as well for Pharisees who believed directing one’s heart/mind toward heaven (rather than elsewhere) was vital (Mishnah Menahot 13.11; cf. Bavli Berakhot* 17a).
Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Pharisees were likely not the habitual seekers of the praise of people, let alone the lazy, self-righteous hypocrites that we’ve come to know them as. Indeed, what faith tradition has not had its share of hypocrites from time-to-time?
We are all faced with a unique challenge by this difficult series of Gospel readings – which neither offer, nor are interested in offering an accurate image of the historical Pharisees, let alone any of Jesus’ “opponents.” We are challenged to imagine and practice ways of understanding these harsh words of Jesus in their historical context, and so to appropriate them responsibly as Catholics in a context of respectful discourse with our “elder brothers in the faith” (Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope). Moreover, and “closer to home,” we may receive these texts as a warning about the dangers all those who are serious about their religion are apt to fall into – being self-righteous and complacent about ourselves while too easily condemning others.
Jack
Posted by: Jack at November 17, 2005 3:20 PMHello Matthew,
Yes, you did speak of tradition playing an illuminative role (another discussion perhaps). But you first asserted that much of "Jesus' teaching" (your term) was "important" (your term) and "left out" (your term) of apostolic writing. Here it is as you wrote it:
Further, [John 21:25] indicates that much of Jesus' teaching was left out of his (John) writings, and the question is does it make them less important? Do you not want to know what they are? I certainly do!
Now, I agree with you, that if such teachings existed I would most certainly want to know what they were. But neither you, nor Joe, nor Joachim, nor anyone else here seems able to produce any that fit the criteria that you established in your very first post. What am I to make of this?
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 17, 2005 4:12 PMHold on there a minute Kaf...your answer was not sufficient in proving that the New Testament books were declared, within themselves, to be the inspired Word of God.
Let's start with St. Peter's letter. Yes, St. Peter does speak specifically about the letters of St. Paul, but it begs the question what letters? It is possible that Ephesians was not even written yet. However others books had been written that St. Peter did not mention, for example St. James' Letter, possibly the Book of Acts and St. Luke's Gospel, most certainly St. Matthew's Gospel, and, the most obvious, his own two letters. Why weren't they included? So to make the claim that they are attested to as being divinely inspired within themselves is simply untrue. In addition, other books had not been written at that time. St. John and St. Mark had not written their Gospels at that time, nor had St. John written any of his letters. Hebrews was also believed to have been written after St. Peter's second letter. So this reference, in and of itself, does not testify to the divine inspiration of the entire New Testament.
Your comment about the Gospels and their being prophetic is loose indeed. The Gospel of Thomas likewise has prophetic aspects yet it was not included in the canon nor declared to be divinely inspired. So jumping to the conclusion that the Gospels are divinely inspired simply because they are prophetic doesn't float.
Again, each individual book of the New Testament does not attest to its own "divine" inspiration.
If they did, and everyone was able to "personally" and "plainly" determine which books were divinely inspired and which weren't why the need for the canon? Why the need to declare that the canon contained all the "divinely inspired" books of Sacred Scripture?
On a side note, let us be clear...the Catholic Church considers Sacred Scripture to be God's Word. It supplements and supports all that she (the Church) teaches, but even if it didn't it would be a non-issue in that it was to St. Peter and the Apostles that Christ gave the authority to "bind and loose" not to a book. That authority is the essential element to Apostolic Tradition, its what enabled the Apostles to say that circumcision wasn't necessary for salvation and it is what enabled the Church Fathers of 392-401 A.D. to definitively declare which books were divinely inspired and which weren't. Christ never commanded the Apostles to do away with circumcision and He most certainly never told them to write books and letters and put them on par with the Judeo-scriptures.
Yet there are other doctrines that required a authoritative interpretation in addition to the determining of which books were divinely inspired and which weren't...but let's finish with this first, then we'll go into the others.
In Christ,
Joe
There's an interesting post on Evangelical theologies over at Jimmy Akin's which relates to this discussion:
What's Wrong With Evangelical Theology
Some points which I think are well made are introduced with the rhetorical question: "Doesn't Catholicism have its own system that departs from Scripture in the same way that the different Evangelical theologies do?
"It certainly has a system that goes beyond Scripture in that it also appeals to Tradition for the data with which it does theology. This is not a problem for Catholics in the way it is for Protestants, though. If you have the idea of sola scriptura as one of your founding theological principles and you don't give Tradition a normative role then you've got to derive your system from Scripture alone.
"That's when you run into problems, because there are many questions that Christians need answers to (e.g., "Who is it okay to baptize and just how do you administer baptism?") that aren't answered in Scripture. Scripture thus points beyond itself to Tradition for these answers. In fact, Scripture itself is simply the written component of Tradition.
"Without the extra-scriptural complement of Tradition, Scripture does not contain enough data to provide confident answers to all the questions that need confident answering (such as the ones mentioned above), and so one attempting to operate from the perspective of sola scriptura will inevitably have to propose some kind of system that can't be fully grounded in Scripture in order to answer those questions."
Posted by: fidens at November 17, 2005 11:03 PMJack:
Interesting post. One thought, however, kept coming to me as I was reading the article from your parish's website. I can clearly undersatand that scripture, as with any historical writing, has to be read in context of the times in which it was written. Therefore, the article seeks to develop an accurate picture of who the pharisees were from Judiasm's perspective because, as is suggested, the 4 gospels alone are inadequate to accurately portray who the pharisees were and what they did because they are biased. How about God? Is He biased? Because it was God Himself in the flesh that called the pharisees hypocrites and vipers and seekers of men's praise. The article seems to suggest that, if you read about the pharisees from Judiasm's perspective (the article cited Josephus' writings) most of the pharisees were respectable leaders, men of honor and character, and actually did practice what they preached. However, God Himself says differently. He called them hypocrites. Who are we to believe? Jesus called them hypocrites and vipers and seekers of men's praise but you say "well, no, Jesus and the gospel writers were not correct in their assesment of the pharisees". I say, "I believe Jesus' assesment and use His words as a warning to me not to be hypocritical with my faith because it is disingenuous and displeasing to God". If Jesus says that they were hypocrites who are we to dispute that? To state that "Jesus statement in Matthew 23:2-3 should not be taken as an accurate description of the 'heart and soul' of Pharisiasm" is bordering on blasphemy.
If we follow your line of thinking to its illogical conclusion anyone can say the following (please forgive the sarcasm that follows):
Murder. God says it's bad, don't do it. But, you know, murder has gotten the short end of the historical stick. How can we know if murder is wrong unless we verify it with someone who has actually murdered someone. Let's get the scoop from someone who has been there. Jeffery Dhamer is murder bad? "No, actually, it is very pleasant". You see, murder isn't bad. We verified it by looking at murder in context from a historical, first hand account. God is mistaken in His assesment of murder.
Give me a break!
To Joe and Joachim:
What happens when Tradition contradicts the word of God? Are we to hold to Tradition then? I am sure that your answer will be "it never does".
I don't think anyone is saying that traditions in general, as a whole, have no place in one's faith or should not be followed. As long as it does not contradict what God says.
Also, Joachim mentioned a few times that "Kaff" believes "scripture alone as a means of salvation". With apologies to "Kaff" for butting in and speaking on his behalf I don't think he ever suggested that. Jesus saves, not scripture. Scripture only testifies of this truth. One cannot be saved by scripture. One is saved by the grace of God through repentance and faith in Jesus the Christ. This is spoken by Jesus and through "apostolic tradition". I think you misinterpreted what he and many others outside of the RCC state.
If we believe that scripture is the written word of God and the truth (as both roman catholics and protestants believe) should we not hold that to be our ultimate authority? I mean it really should not be that complicated, should it? If God said it then we should believe it. Period. It has been mentioned that "apostolic/oral tradition" existed "centuries" before the Bible was compiled. This is true. It was also mentioned that the writings that make up the Bible were included to "reaffirm" what was being taught already through "apotolic tradition". Of course. But why were those specific writings included in the canon? Because the words written in those writngs were the truth as given by Jesus Himself and His apostles. What was written was true and from a reliable source, therefore, it was included in the Bible. So then the question is, "can their be any truth added on to what has already been established as true?" (ie- the Bible). If the answer is "yes" then does the RCC believe in "apostolic revelation" as the mormons do? That the heirarchy of the RCC continues to receive direct revelation from God to this day in addition to what scrpture already proclaims as truth? If so, I believe that "Kaff" is waiting to hear what this "revelation" may be. If the answer is "no" then the only source for their faith that the RCC can rely on is Sacred scripture because it has already been established as true.
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that the problem with the RCC "is not so much a matter of 'denial' of the truth, but rather such an addition to the truth that eventually it becomes a departure from it."
May God bless you always,
Ernie
I found this information on the web.
"The Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of all mankind" (Rev. John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions.
"You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine" (the apostle Paul's instructions to Titus, Titus 2:1).
Catholic apologist Karl Keating correctly points out in "What Catholics Really Believe - Setting the Record Straight", "Catholics are required to hold and believe all the declared doctrines of the Church." No one can deny that substantial changes have occurred in the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II, the major Roman Catholic council intended to usher in "the beginning of a new era in Roman Catholic history." Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has increasingly encouraged its members to read the Bible and apply it to their lives. Also, it is no longer a serious sin to attend non-Catholic churches. Perhaps the most important change in Catholicism is its allowance of a new freedom for the biblical gospel itself. Modern Roman Catholicism is commendable in other ways as well. Socially the Church has consistently maintained a high view of the sanctity of life and of marriage. Biblically it has continued to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, at least as an official doctrine of the Church. Theologically it accepts the orthodox view of the Trinity, Christ's deity, and His atonement. Spiritually it has a good understanding of the seriousness of sin and its consequences in eternal judgment.
Nonetheless, all this does not mean that the Church is without problems. Perhaps the most serious issue in Roman Catholicism is its unwillingness to accept biblical authority alone as the final determiner of Christian doctrine and practice. For example, by accepting Catholic Tradition as a means of divine revelation, even biblically correct teachings in the Church become hedged about with unbiblical trimmings, which in turn tend to either revise, neutralize, or nullify the truth found in the Bible. This truly unfortunate situation illustrates a principle Jesus taught - that even heartfelt religious traditions can become a means of leading people away from God's best for their lives. On one occasion Jesus told the leading religious figures of His day, "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Regardless, no one can argue with the statement that "...the Roman Church has been one of the most powerful influences in the history of all civilization..." Thus, because Roman Catholicism is a major world religion having more than a billion adherents, and because its influence in the world is sizeable, a biblical evaluation of the teachings of the Church is vital.
Why should the issue of what constitutes divine revelation be a vital concern to all Christians?
If God has revealed Himself to mankind, can we know where that revelation is found? Can we identify it? In other words, can we truly know what God has spoken to us?
What constitutes divine revelation is crucial because without it, very little can be known about God - who He is, what He has communicated to us, and what He expects of us. The question of divine authority is inseparably bound to the issue of divine revelation. Only that which comes from God has divine authority. Only God's revelation has authentic and inherent power to command obedience.
Has God spoken? If so, where has He spoken?
Protestants have traditionally maintained that God has spoken solely in the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament. Only these books are divinely authoritative. In contrast, Roman Catholicism teaches that in addition to the Protestant Bible, there are five other sources having divine authority. First, there are additional books written between the Old and New Testaments, known to Catholics as the deuterocanonical books and to Protestants by the term "apocrypha." Roman Catholics consider these books genuine Scripture and include them as part of their Bible. Second, Catholicism maintains that divine authority is to be found in the authorized Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, which is also classified as the "Word of God." Third, divine authority (infallibility) is given to the Pope when he speaks officially on matters of faith and morals. Fourth, when speaking or teaching in conjunction with the Pope and orthodox Catholic Tradition, Roman Catholic bishops are also held to be infallible, and hence, divinely authoritative. Finally, official Roman Catholic interpretation of the Bible (Catholic teaching) is considered to have divine warrant and authority. In essence, all five of these sources can be summarized by the term "Roman Catholic Tradition." Protestantism rejects these additional sources of divine authority, and this underscores the single most important division between the two churches. Neither Protestants nor Catholics can deny this issue. Divine authority cannot be found in the Bible alone and at the same time in various additional sources of alleged revelation if these deny the Bible. Because God does not contradict Himself (2nd Corinthians 1:17-20; cf. Psalm 145:13; Galatians 3:21; Hebrews 13:8) and cannot lie. He cannot affirm one set of teachings in the Bible and then declare them wrong through additional forms of revealed Tradition. Therefore, Protestants believe that if the Bible truly is God's Word (as Catholics also maintain), then anything that conflicts with biblical teachings cannot possibly be from God. In short, this issue is crucial because Catholic Tradition and biblical revelation conflict with one another on matters of vital importance, such as the means of salvation. In the end, this may have great personal consequence, including the uncertainty about or even the unintended rejection of the true means of salvation. No one can deny that devout Catholics, like Protestants, sincerely wish to do God's will; they desire to know what is pleasing to God so they may live their lives accordingly. This is why the issue of biblical authority is so crucial.
The sacraments of Catholicism involve spiritual activities such as baptism, confirmation, penance, and participation in the Mass. These are presided over by a Catholic priest who acts as a mediator between God and man. These special activities are held to dispense God's "grace" (here, as a spiritual substance or power) and God's favor. Rome's sevenfold sacramental system was apparently initiated for the first time in the twelfth century and continues today: "For the Roman Catholic his whole life from the cradle to the grave, and indeed beyond the grave is purgatory, is conditioned by the sacramental approach." Thus, understanding the sacraments is essential to understanding Catholicism. Through the sacraments, "...internal grace is that [power] received in the interior of the soul, enabling us to act supernaturally." Further, "the supernatural gift of God infused into the very essence of the soul as a habit is habitual grace. The grace is also called sanctifying or justifying grace, because it is included in both..." The real difference between the Protestant and Catholic view of sacraments is not the number of sacraments, two versus seven, but rather in the meaning and purpose of the sacraments. Protestantism sees its sacraments - baptism and communion - primarily as symbols and memorials of vital theological truths. But Catholicism sees the sacraments as actually changing a person inwardly, as through a form of spiritual empowering. In Protestantism a sacrament underscores a promise of God; in Catholicism the sacraments infuse a special grace into the soul in order to meet a special need. Catholic sacraments are an outward sign of an infused grace. We have summarized the results of each of the sacraments below:
1. Baptism
(Which is not repeated) cleanses from original sin, removes other sins and consequent punishment, provides spiritual rebirth or regeneration (John 3:3), beings the process of justification, and is "necessary for salvation."
2. Confirmation
(Not repeated) bestows the Holy Spirit in a special sense, leading to "an increasing of sanctifying grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit" as well as their spiritual power and a sealing to the Catholic Church.
3. Penance
Removes the penalty of sins committed after baptism and confirmation. Mortal or "deadly" sins are remitted and the "justification" lost by such sins is restored as a continuing process.
4. Holy Eucharist
Is where Christ is re-sacrificed and the benefits of Calvary are continually applied anew to the believers.
5. Marriage
Is where grace is given to remain in the bonds of matrimony indicates with the requirements of the Catholics Church.
6. Anointing the sick
(Formerly extreme unction) bestows grace on those who are sick, old, or near death and helps in forgiveness of sins and sometimes the physical healing of the body.
7. Holy orders
(Not repeated) confers special grace and spiritual power upon bishops, priests, and deacons for leadership in the Church as representatives of Christ "for all eternity."
The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-63), whose decrees remain authoritative, declared as "anathema" (divinely cursed) anyone who would deny the seven sacraments of Rome: "If anyone says that the sacraments...were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven...or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema (divinely cursed). "Further, "if anyone says that the sacraments...are not necessary for salvation...and that without them...men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification...let him be anathema (divinely cursed)." Canon Five reads, "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema (divinely cursed)." What this means is that Catholicism offers what is termed a sacerdotal salvation - a salvation that is given through the functions of the priesthood, namely the sacraments. In the end, salvation is a function of (1) God's grace, (2) individual faith and works, and (3) the Roman Catholic system of sacraments. (That is why the Church has traditionally taught that there is only one true Church - Rome - and that those outside of the Church cannot be saved since they are partakers of neither the one true Church not the sacraments, both of which help procure salvation.)
Catholic popes have historically emphasized the belief that, in the words of John Paul II, "Man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Despite changes in Catholicism, most priests remain loyal to Rome. Perhaps this explains why, according to one of the most thorough polls of American clergy ever made, "over three quarters of Roman Catholic priests reject the view that our only hope for heaven is through personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They hold instead that 'heaven is a divine reward for those who earn it by their good life.' " Priestly loyalty to Rome may also explain why this poll revealed that "four-fifths of all priests reject the Bible as the first place to turn in deciding religious questions; rather, they test their religious belief by what the Church says." The majority of Catholic priests deny the biblical doctrine of salvation because as priest - loyal to the Pope - they are required to reject the idea that divine authority resides only in the Bible. For them, divine authority resides in the Catholic Church and Tradition. Priests, therefore, look primarily to the Church for answers to religious questions because they believe only the Catholic Church can infallibly determine proper doctrine through its interpretation of the Bible. Thus, a study of Catholic history will show that it is the Church, and not the Bible, that has developed Catholic doctrine over the years. These doctrine are, in part, upheld by the unique definition Rome gives to biblical words. For example, Catholic writers often speak of "salvation by grave" or state emphatically that "good works can't earn salvation" - and they will cite biblical Scriptures to that effect. But they mean something different than what the Bible means. They are reiterating the position of the Council of Trent that no one can do good works or please God apart from the prior infusing of sanctifying grace. But - and this is key - Catholic theology goes on to teach that these very works which are inspired by grace are, in the end, what helps to save a person. It is crucial to realize that once terms such as "faith," "grace," "salvation," "redemption," and "justification" are interpreted through larger Catholic theology, they become so altered that they lose their biblical meanings. Karl Keating is entirely correct when he points out, "As in so many matters, fundamentalists [e.g., conservative Christians] and Catholics are at loggerheads because they define terms differently."
Devout Catholics do not question their Church's teaching about its definitions of biblical terms because the Catholic Church emphasizes that "over the Book [Bible] stands the Church..." The Church has final authority over the Bible and, therefore, it is the Church's interpretation of biblical words that are authoritative. In the end, it is the Church's definition of biblical terms - and not the Bible's - that wins the day. Thus, The Papal Encyclicals correctly state that while Protestants turn to the Bible to determine whether or not a doctrine is true, this is just the reverse of the Catholic's approach to belief. As the Catholic sees it, he must accept God on God's terms and not his own. It is not for him to "judge" the divine message, but only to receive it. Since he receives it from a living, teaching organ, he does not have to puzzle over the meaning of the revelation because the ever present living magisterium [teaching office] can tell him exactly what the doctrine intends.
Again, Catholics turn to the Church because they have been promised that the Church exercises an inerrant authority to properly interpret the Bible. The Catholic believes he can, in full trust, accept whatever the Church teaches and never worry that the Church might be wrong.
In his definitive critique of the Council of Trent (a council convened to oppose Protestant teaching), eminent Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) correctly noted that the Catholic popes and teaching office had reserved for themselves the prerogative of a biased interpretation of Scripture predicated primarily upon Catholic Tradition. The end result was an entirely new interpretation "so that we must believe not what the Scripture says simply, strictly, and clearly, but what they through their power and authority interpret for us. By this strategy they seek to escape the clearest passages [of Scripture] concerning justifying faith...the...intercession of Christ, etc." In sharp contrast to the Bible, the Catholic doctrine of salvation teaches or implies that actual forgiveness of sins comes not only by faith in Christ, but also through many or all of the following: (a) the sacraments, such as baptism and penance; (b) participation in the Mass; (c) the help of the virgin Mary; (d) the recitation of the rosary; and (e) purgatorial suffering after death. Because the true merit of man, achieved through these and other means, is in some sense responsible for salvation, Catholicism cannot logically deny that it teaches a form of salvation by works. All of scripture, including the words of Jesus Himself, refute that belief.
Ernie,
Your comment is so full of errors that I'm not even going to waste my time trying to counter it...all of this has been addressed in other articles.
Please, try to avoid jumping into the middle of serious dialogue to inject your own misconceptions about the Catholic Faith..okay?
One more thing..."traditionally" the Protestant Bible lacked other books as well. I could tell you which books, but I think I'd rather you have to look it up on your own. Needless to say, the Catholic Bible contains the entire canon as originally laid out by the Council Fathers between the years of 392 and 401 A.D. It was Luther and other Protestants that sliced and diced Sacred Scripture...that's a historical fact.
In Christ,
Joe
Hi Joe, you wrote,
Hold on there a minute Kaf...your answer was not sufficient in proving that the New Testament books were declared, within themselves, to be the inspired Word of God.
You are correct, my answer was not sufficient. But I never really intended to debate this point. The doctrine of the canon does not conform to Matthew's original criteria because it is not apostolic. Matthew himself agreed in the original 10 questions thread. So whether the canon is self-evident from the works of scripture themselves is made irrelevant.
Either there is no such thing as an apostolic, essential, non-scriptural teaching. Or you name one. It's as simple as that, my friends.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 18, 2005 1:19 AMErnie, I have no objection to you rejecting whichever points of Catholic doctrine you disagree with. I do, however, object to you and Rev O'Brien putting words into the mouths of Catholics, twisting what we say to make it contradict scripture, and then claiming that we contradict scripture. I am more than happy to learn of other interpretations of scripture and look for points of agreement and divergent.
I have yet to decide what I should do about outrageous claims about what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Whether it be the lie that the Church officially presents Mary for the faithful to worship or the lie that the Catholic Church officially teaches that through good works, we can make God "owe" us a heavenly reward.
Part of me wishes to make Catholic Church teaching clear so that all will know what it really is so they can make an informed decision as to whether they wish to embrace or reject it. Another part of me is so disgusted with the 'tone' I take while defending the Church against slanderous accusations that I feel I should say nothing lest I violate the Lord's command to love my neighbor as myself.
What can I do other than earn my namesake?
The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach salvation by works. It teaches that faith without works is dead. It teaches salvation by grace alone. It rejects salvation by faith alone. It teaches salvation by the faith and works which flow from God's sanctifying grace. It teaches that God's grace can be rejected and eternally forfeited even after embracing it.
The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that it has the authority to contradict Scriptures. It teaches that what many consider to be the "clear, and simple" interpretation of Scripture to be wrong.
If I misrepresent Roman Catholic Church teaching or its interpretation of the Bible, by all means point out my inaccuracies by referring me to Papal Encyclicals or the Catechism of the Catholic Church - I could benefit greatly from such correction. But please do not put words in the mouths of Catholics or cite ex-nuns or Protestant pastors as good sources of Catholic teaching. I really do not know whether to ignore such posts or try to set the record straight.
Posted by: Broken Record at November 18, 2005 3:03 AMKaf,
It's not that simple...I'm not claiming that the canon is the doctrine, I'm claiming the doctrine to be the divine inspiration of the New Testament.
You have yet to provide a proof that the four Gospels and some of the other books of the New Testament are divinely inspired. I will agree with you on St. Peter's comment on the letters of St. Paul, but that does not include all the other books of the New Testament.
So let's look at the three point criteria now:
1. apostolic - certainly, any basic reading of the Early Church Fathers will clearly reveal that.
2. essential - absolutely, if the Gospels aren't divinely inspired then how do we know that anything pertaining to Christ is true?
3. non-scriptural - within the given text of each book or letter the claim of divine inspiration is not made...so again, the answer is yes.
There's your one....
In Christ,
Joe
Kaffinator,
In response to your comment, “…you first asserted that much of "Jesus' teaching" (your term) was "important" (your term) and "left out" (your term) of apostolic writing. I’ve noticed in your responses to me and others that you apply your views on to the responses instead of the taking the responses at face value. If you re-read my statement I said: Further, [John 21:25] indicates that much of Jesus' teaching was left out of his (John) writings, and the question is does it make them less important? Do you not want to know what they are? I certainly do! Take note of two things: First, I said (and John said) that much was left out of JOHN’S writings, not apostolic writing (your term) in general. Second, I specifically stated that “…does it make them LESS important” illustrating that all the apostles witnessed and learned was equally valuable in equipping them to building up the kingdom of heaven whether it was written down or not.
We have already established from Joe and Joachim that Scripture and Tradition overlap. So the key to the entire discussion Kaf is authoritative interpretation. We all agree that Scripture is the Word of God, and it is authoritative, and we have agreed that there was, and is, an oral tradition of the Word, but the divergence begins with authority. If Scripture is the final authority in all matters related to the Christian faith and if everyone can read Scripture and clearly understand all inherent doctrines…then why are we even having this discussion? If we could all recognize divinely inspired writing and the Holy Spirit was leading us all in our prayerful reading of it wouldn’t we ALL come to the some conclusion? Again, I say…much of Scripture is NOT perspicuous, which is contrary to the non-Catholic Christian belief. Beyond that, if according to Protestant doctrine (and assuming that it is correct) that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and each individual believer has the right to read and prayerfully determine in accord with Spirit what the Scriptures say then don’t we as Catholics have that same right? Are you saying that your interpretation is better than mine or Joe’s, or Joachim’s? If so then that seems hypocritical since according to the tenets of sola scriptura everyone has that right. So if this is what you really believe then at best you or any Bible-only believer can do is TIE with a Catholic. If you say that this isn’t the case then you must be saying that yours is a better interpretation and can read Scripture and interpret it infallibly. However, I don’t think that you would be so bold, nor would I, and that is the difference. We (as Catholics) have the Church’s Magisterum to define the dogmas and doctrines contained in Scripture and because of its divine protection from Christ it cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals. Comforting indeed!
Below is a link to a famous sermon from 1880 A.D. by Fr. Arnold Damen that I would encourage you and all who read this to check out that gives a compelling argument for authority based on Tradition. Even though it is over a hundred years old it could easily be preached this Sunday and is highly relevant to our discussion. Please check it out.
http://www.ihsv.com/churchbible.html
In Christ,
Matthew
Hi Joe,
I guess I misread you a bit, I apologize. But your point is excellent, let's address it by setting aside the canon and ask whether there is any New Testament attestation to the notion of inspired written works (that is, Scripture) within its own pages. Is the doctrine of the New Testament's inspiration non-scriptural? I do not so.
John writes, in Rev 1:10-11a, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches:'". This is nothing but a direct claim of inspiration.
Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:10, "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband". Here as elsewhere , Paul is claiming inspiration from the Lord to give this command. Again, a direct claim of inspiration.
Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:19, "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention …" and concludes the passage in verse 21, "for no prophecy [of Scripture] was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Peter may or may not be referring to his own writing, but he is definitely describing the provenance of scripture in general. And we know from 2 Peter 3:15-16 that Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as Scripture. Now, you point out truthfully that Peter is not explicit in which of Paul's writings to which he is referring. But that is really a matter of the discernment of the canon, which we have set aside.
We could also look at general passages such as 1 Thess. 2:13 and Matthew 10:20 that attest generally to the Holy Spirit working through the teachings of the apostles (whether written or spoken).
Again we do not have attestation for every single work. Nor does every single work explicitly attest to its own inspired content. But this is a matter of discerning the canon. But we can say without question, from scripture alone, that the Apostles were inspired by the Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit to deliver instructions (either orally or in writing) to the saints of God. That is good enough for me.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 18, 2005 12:15 PMErnie,
I respond only to a portion of your comments below, and briefly, in [brackets].
“Therefore, the article seeks to develop an accurate picture of who the pharisees were from Judiasm's perspective because, as is suggested, the 4 gospels alone are inadequate to accurately portray who the pharisees were and what they did because they are biased. How about God? Is He biased? Because it was God Himself in the flesh that called the pharisees hypocrites and vipers and seekers of men's praise. The article seems to suggest that, if you read about the pharisees from Judiasm's perspective (the article cited Josephus' writings) most of the pharisees were respectable leaders, men of honor and character, and actually did practice what they preached. However, God Himself says differently. He called them hypocrites. Who are we to believe? Jesus called them hypocrites and vipers and seekers of men's praise but you say "well, no, Jesus and the gospel writers were not correct in their assesment of the pharisees". I say, "I believe Jesus' assesment and use His words as a warning to me not to be hypocritical with my faith because it is disingenuous and displeasing to God". If Jesus says that they were hypocrites who are we to dispute that? To state that "Jesus statement in Matthew 23:2-3 should not be taken as an accurate description of the 'heart and soul' of Pharisiasm" is bordering on blasphemy.”
[The article doesn’t suggest that the Gospels are inadequate. It does suggest that they were not written to offer objective appraisal of the Pharisees. And, I suspect that if the author of the article shared the same context wherein you find yourself vis-à-vis the Bible, the author is indeed guilty of blasphemy – and so I since I think the article is right on target. But you and I do not share the same context, obviously. The article does reflect the official teaching of the Catholic Church however, as well as the perspective of the vast majority of biblical scholars (Catholic and Protestant).
Ernie, I appreciate your candor, and the passion with which you reduce the issue to simply “God said they’re hypocrites…so they were hypocrites.” But that reduction reflects your own theological perspective – which in turn, reflects an invincible historical & biblical-naivete that demands simplistic reductionism like this. We simply do not stand on the same ground – even though we both can claim (and do claim, no doubt!) that we stand firmly on the word of God!]
Peace!
Hi Matthew, you wrote,
We have already established from Joe and Joachim that Scripture and Tradition overlap. So the key to the entire discussion Kaf is authoritative interpretation.
Actually, this entire discussion is based not on my interpretation, but yours (remember John 21:35is predicated on your original interpretation of John 21:35, by which you implied that extra-scriptural teachings can only be received through the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Let me ask you plainly then: are there, or are there not, truths or teachings that the apostles themselves declared orally, that are essential teachings of the Christian faith, and that are not to be found in scripture?
I suppose you might take exception to whole idea of whether a doctrine can actually be found in scripture or not, that being a matter of interpretation. It is true that some doctrine is obscure, but I find that the essentials are plain. St. Irenaeus would agree with me, I think, for he wrote:
A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. (Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter XXVII, Paragraph 1, my emphasis)
Oh, and thanks for posting the sermon, I'll read through it when I get a chance.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 18, 2005 3:09 PMKaf,
So you are conceding to the fact that the doctrine of divine inspiration required Apostolic Tradition?
I do want to reemphasize what I said before about "certain" books or letters possibly falling under the category of being "divinely inspired" verses those that do not.
1. None of the Gospels, clearly or plainly, contain the claim of being divinely inspired.
2. In my first comment I had already recognized that St. John in Revelations did make the claim of a "heavenly vision," but due to the fact that the canon did not exist at that time, his claim would not apply to ALL the New Testament.
3. In 1 Cor 7:10, St. Paul is making an appeal to the words of Christ about marriage (Mk 10:2-12, Lk 16;18) both of which he learned of via "oral," "apostolic" tradition verses the "written" Word considering that neither St. Luke or St. Mark's Gospels hadn't been written yet.
4. 2 Peter 1:19-21 - this passage, given the context, is a reference pointing to the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. It in no way implies that St. Peter's letters are divinely inspired.
Again, there is your "one"....
In Christ,
Joe
Hi Joe,
If you will recall, you carefully separated the notion of the canon (the discernment of which works are scripture and which are note) and the question of whether any of the New Testament can be considered inspired, working from scripture alone.
That is why I gave you several New Testament quotes attesting to the inspirational character of at least some parts of the New Testament. That is why I feel justified in calling the idea of New Testament inspiration a scriptural doctrine.
In response, you pointed out.
1) The gospels make no internal and explicit claim of inspiration. That is true. But they do claim to record the words of the very Son of God. If His words were "inspired", then an accurate account of those words should be considered no less inspired.
2) The Apostle John did not claim inspiration for the rest of the New Testament. That is true. But you cannot deny that it attests an inspired quality for itself.
3) Paul was referring to the words of Christ as was later to be recorded in the gospels. Maybe yes, maybe no. We do not really know whether any of the gospels were available when he wrote his letter to the Corinthians. If he was referring to the gospel material, we then have an attestation that the gospels were considered by the Apostle Paul as accurately conveying the words of the Lord, making them rightly "God-breathed" and therefore scriptural. If he was not referring to gospel material, he may have received it through direct revelation (see 1 Cor 11:23 in the same epistle, or consider Gal 1:12, "For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.") In any case, I don't see how we can conclude that Paul ever appealed to "apostolic tradition" in the way you suggest.
4) Yes, I tend to agree with you that Peter here was referring to messianic prophecies in that passage. But my point was only that Peter had a distinct notion of the origin of "scripture" in mind, and in that same epistle he used the same term to refer to Pauline writings. Therefore we have yet another attestation of inspiration.
Again I say, the idea that there was such a thing as inspired New Testament writings is well-established in New Testament scripture itself. It is a scriptural, essential, and apostolic teaching. The exact makeup of the canon, as you indicated earlier, is a separate issue.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 18, 2005 5:49 PMKaf,
But the canon wasn't given to us until 392-401 A.D. so this claim that the New Testament can be considered inspired cannot be inclusive of ALL the New Testament. The quotes you provided may attest to certain letters of St. Paul and/or the book of Revelation but to apply this to the rest of the New Testament is not justified. You at least can agree to this...can't you?
In reply to your comment about the Gospels, so why should we believe that the Gospels were divinely inspired? You state that Jesus' words were inspired, but if we don't know that the Gospels themselves are inspired how can we know that what Jesus' taught in these Gospels is inspired?
In reference to St. Paul's comments about marriage and the word of the Lord, I didn't say any of the Gospels...I said specifically the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke...again, provide the historical reference that would prove otherwise.
Since, the fact that ALL the New Testament books were divinely inspired is so obvious within those books please provide the "scriptural" proof....
The point is that Apostolic Tradition (i.e. Apostolic authority) was absolutely necessary in addition to Sacred Scripture, for without it we would not know, whether the Gospels and other books of the New Testament were inspired or not.
Again, the three-point criteria is met and satisfied in this alone.
In Christ,
Joe
Hi Joe, let me see if I can summarize in a way we would both agree.
We see that the New Testament scripture speaks of itself, at least partially, as inspired. However, we do not find explicit statements referring to the inspirational quality of every single book in the New Testament. Therefore we both rely, in some way, on the understanding of the early church to determine which books are actually to be considered inspired (i.e. scriptural).
Would you agree with that statement, as it is?
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 18, 2005 7:15 PMJack:
Thanks for your response. How is it that I am reflecting my "own theological perspective" in stating that I believe that what Jesus said is true and accurrate? Forgive my simplicity but I feel that sometimes many people complicate simple issues by looking for more than what was intended. I do not dismiss the historical context in which the statements were made but I believe God and take Him at His word more than I trust my own intellectual reasoning and ability to accurately reconstruct history.
I appreciate your insight.
May God bless you always,
Ernie
Joe:
My apologies for interupting "serious dialogue" with my "misconceptions". My "misconceptions", however, are based on the teachings of the RCC whether you choose to recognize it or not. It amazes me how you and the RCC continually rape history and claim it for your very own and twist and rewrite it to justify your belief. Then claim that only the RCC has the authority to interpret the things of God and anyone who speaks against what the RCC teaches is erroneous or lying. How convenient. No matter what anyone says you can never be in error. There is no arguing or even having a dialogue with that when one is considered wrong before they even speak because only you have the authority to make any claims or "interpretations". As if the RCC is the creator of the truth.
My issue is not with you or any other person. I seek only the truth and I pray that it may set me free. If I have offended or hurt anyone with my words I apologize and ask for forgiveness.
May God bless you always,
Ernie
Ernie,
I'm curious to hear how you reconcile the following comments:
"It amazes me how you and the RCC continually rape history and claim it for your very own and twist and rewrite it to justify your belief."
and
"If I have offended or hurt anyone with my words I apologize and ask for forgiveness."
As Joe's fellow 'history rapist' may I observe that, in context, your apology comes across as being a little insincere.
Also I looked for the online article which you provided but couldn't find it, and the only similar reference was taken from "Facts on Roman Catholicism" by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. If you wish to have an honest and open debate about what the Catholic Church teaches might I humbly suggest using the Catechism as your source - at least it was written by Catholics.
That way we can discuss what the Church actually teaches, as opposed to what its opponents claim it teaches.
Peace
Posted by: fidens at November 20, 2005 12:30 AMKaffinator,
I will respond more later, but the thing that jumps out at me the most is your idea of what are "essential" doctrines are "non-essential" doctrines. Again, this is YOUR interpretation. So who decides what is and is not essential? You? Me? Again, twist as you might, the discussion is about AUTHORITY.
In Christ,
Matthew
Kaffinator,
This is such an interesting dialogue overall. I find it very interesting because you (obviously a non-Catholic) continue to cite the early Church fathers who WERE Catholic. It seems that your "cafeteria" approach to the Christian faith is a bit inconsistent though. I say this because you extract quotes from the [Catholic ]Fathers who adhered to Catholic doctrines, but you still do not believe that the Catholic Church is the torch-bearer of the faith. Interesting indeed!
As for Ireneus specifically I would point out that Ireneus fully recognized Tradition as well as Scripture (just like the Catholic Chuch does today). Again I say that they are NOT opposed to one another nor contradict one another. They are equally authoritative in Ireneus' eyes and in the eyes of the Church. Ireneus read the Scriptures plainly because of his appeal and reflection upon the [Apostolic] TRADITION within the Church, not in and of themselves. Take a look:
Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith...But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of TRADITION...And when we challenge them in turn what that TRADITION, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The TRADITION of the Apostles, manifested 'on the contrary' in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth...And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles (Against Heresies 3,1-3)
Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition (Against Heresies, 3,2,1)
For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the TRADITION which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches? (Against Heresies 3, 4:1)
Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters...It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures (Against Heresies, Preface V 20, 1)
Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure TRADITION of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same ...And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world...For the Church preaches the truth everywhere..." (Against Heresies, Preface V 20,1)
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical TRADITION from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth (Against Heresies 3,3:3)
So Kaf, Ireneus seems to support your view only to a point. Neither does does he, or any of the Fathers, adhere to sola scriptura by any means, nor does he see the Scriptures as perspicuous. Ireneus submits to the authoritative [Apostolic} Tradition of the Catholic Church a little over a hundred years after the death of Christ and it is the same as it is today 2000 years later.
In Truth,
Matthew
Kaf, Matthew, Joe and Joachim,
First of all thank you all for leading this post showing true respect for one another being loyal to the Lord's commandment to love neighbor. I've been visiting this website for over 5 months and I must say this post is one of the most respectful ones I've seen, especially on the side of Kaf. By this point in another post, the "non-Catholic" side would be overwhelmed with the ammount and quality of arguments presented by the "Catholic" side. Yet Kaf keeps comming back showing true interest in truth.(I used the "quotation marks" because although it seems clear to me that Kaf is non-Catholic, he himself has not said so)
Now this is especially for Kaf: It is not very clear to me why would you insist so much in having one apostolic, essential, non-scriptural teaching (wheter there are any or not, I'm really not an expert)when you as a non-Catholic (assuming you are not Catholic)reject many Apostolic, Essential (very essential indeed)and SCRIPTURAL teachings? (i.e. the Real Presence in the Eucharist)
Posted by: Rafa at November 21, 2005 12:02 PMHello Matthew, I'm not going to debate with you about Irenaeus. And I'm not going to debate with you about "authority". This all began when I took you to say, you’re your interpretation of scripture, that there was such a thing as an apostolic, essential, and non-scriptural teaching which is only available through the RCC. But in your last post you chose not to answer my question of whether such a teaching even exists. This seems to me a step backwards in our discussion.
I'm glad you have found our dialogue interesting. It is all the more regrettable that I must bow out at this point. It is hurtful when you accuse me of twisting and applying "cafeteria" Christianity as I search it out, even in the readings of great Christians of the past. You may be convinced my faith is poisonously faulty in some regard--and perhaps it is! But, consider, if you became convinced that a friend of yours had appendicitis, would you immediately turn upon him with a steak knife and attempt the operation? That's a bit how it feels.
I've been in online discussions like this before. I know that one very tempting path is to "toughen up", to treat you and my other "opponents" with emotional disregard. In other words, to lose the love of Christ, just for now, so I can supposedly pursue "truth" with barbed words and other weapons of viciousness. My friends, take it from me, such an approach is not worth the cost.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 21, 2005 12:20 PMKaf,
Before I agree to any statement I want you to concede to the fact that I have shown you, with clarity, that the three point criteria has been met in terms of the divine inspiration of the Gospels and other books of the New Testament. Tradition was necessary in order for us, as believers, to know with certainty that the Gospels were and are divinely inspired.
This is a pivotal point for you, as a Christian, because here you have met your match so to speak. You stated that:
And so I remain unaware of any teaching which the Apostles (or Christ Himself) passed on, which is essential to the faith, and which is not already contained in the Holy Scriptures.
Now you have been made aware of one...and a big one at that, for obviously you yourself hold to this doctrine of the Catholic Church, even if unknowingly.
So the next question that must be asked (and answered) is which doctrines of this Church, that had the authority to declare the Gospels to be divinely inspired, do you reject and why?
In Christ,
Joe
Kaf,
I sincerely apologize if I offended you by my comments. It was not my intention to do so. My goal is to convey and discuss truth, not to extinguish or attempt to lord it over anyone. Again you have my deepest apologies and I hope that you do continue to pursue the truth.
Please know that I was not attacking you, but merely pointing out that (I guess in the wrong way from your perspective) it did not make sense to me how you could defend your position with a Catholic saint (i.e., Ireneus, etc.)who believed in the Catholic Church and its doctrines. Nothing more. Actually I am very happy that you are reading the Church Fathers since they are a great resource for understanding the faith. Many non-Catholics, and Catholics alike, are deficient in their knowledge of Church history. It is a wonderful way to know the faith better and I encourage you to continue on your journey. I also commend you on your willingness to communicate openly and without ill will. You have been very gracious. So if this is the end of your posting all I can say is God bless you and may the Lord shine a light on your path to the truth.
In Christ,
Matthew
Hi Joe,
I don't understand. Whether or not you agree to a mutual statement of understanding should not depend on my concession of an unrelated point. I was seeking your agreement on that statement so I could show you, from our common understanding, how I reached my conclusion.
I do not believe my criteria have been met because I draw an important distinction between the two doctrines my earlier statement summarized. I'll try to make this very clear.
The first teaching is that freshly inspired content was being added to the Hebrew canon during the lifetimes of the original apostles. I think this is made clear enough in New Testament scripture, as we have discussed. This doctrine is essential, scriptural, and apostolic.
The second teaching is the knowledge of exactly which writings were to be considered "inspired". You contend that the bishops of the council of Hippo had divine authority to determine which books were inspired Scripture and which books were not. I hold that they were merely formalizing what the majority of the church already took as true (as evidenced by the fact that numerous pre-393 Christians referred to New Testament writings as "scripture"). But in either case, neither of us claims that the list of canonical writings were given to us by the original apostles themselves. This makes the teaching "non-apostolic" in my definition of "apostolic".
And so I find that there remains no doctrine presented that is non-scriptural, while being both apostolic and essential.
Finally, you propose a new discussion on whether I personally reject certain RCC doctrines. My friend, this is not a discussion I wish to undertake at this time or place. But I appreciate the interest, and I hope you will respect my wishes.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 21, 2005 2:43 PMKaf,
So let me reword your summary above in a way that addresses both the teachings you have just mentioned and that I am willing to agree on:
We see that St. Peter speaks of St. Paul's letters, which ones we do not know, as being on par with the Hebrew Scriptures. However, we do not find explicit statements referring to the inspirational quality of any individual book, in reference to itself, other than the book of Revelation. Therefore we both rely completely on the Apostolic Tradition of the Church to determine which books are actually to be considered inspired (i.e. scriptural).
Would you agree with that statement, as it is?
No need to discuss my last question to you above, I fully respect your wishes in this regard. My hope is simply that you prayerfully consider it.
In Christ,
Joe
Fidens wrote: If you wish to have an honest and open debate about what the Catholic Church teaches might I humbly suggest using the Catechism as your source - at least it was written by Catholics. That way we can discuss what the Church actually teaches, as opposed to what its opponents claim it teaches.
Well said. You made the point I was also trying to make more respectfully than I was able to. While I have much to learn about the Catholic faith, I have even more to learn about expressing thoughts and ideas in ways which respect the dignity of other people.
On that note, I wonder how many people actually know what the Catholic Church teaches and yet remain outside it. If this blog achieved nothing more than to temporarily increase that number, it will have been worth all the time and effort.
Posted by: Broken Record at November 21, 2005 4:05 PMHi Joe,
Thank you for your consideration. And I agree for the most part with your reformulation with two objections.
First is that the apostle Paul clearly believed, even as he wrote, that he was teaching the gospel from a special revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11-12) and having been given this revelation, he claimed to have "stewardship of God's grace" and a special "insight into the mystery of Christ" (Eph 3:2-4). He delivered his directions to "all the churches" (1 Cor 7:17) and instructed in one letter that it be read to "all the brethren" (1 Thes 5:27). He also held that what he taught was normative for the church (Gal 1:8, 1 Tim 6:3). I could go on here but you get the idea. Paul in his letters generally believed that he was issuing normative, written teachings from the Lord to the universal church. Is this not a functional definition of "scripture"? So, it makes me uncomfortable to exclude every book but John's apocalypse from a self-claim of inspiration.
Second is "we both rely completely on ...Apostolic Tradition". I believe you use the term "Apostolic Tradition" to mean "tradition carried on by the Roman-centered tradition which alone carries with it by succession the full authority of the apostles," and, further, you hold that it is only by that authority by which we can know which books are inspired. Yet we know that long before any Roman council ever convened on the matter, there was already a broad consensus throughout the church over the makeup of the canon. Early (pre-200 AD) saints such as Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus quoted from the gospels and epistles and often referred to them directly as "scripture". So I would say something like "I rely on the consensus of the saints of God to determine which books are actually to be considered inspired". I doubted that you would put it that way, so for our common statement I used the neutral term "the understanding of the early church".
In either case, we have no reason to believe the makeup of the canon was "taught by the original apostles" as I defined it in my very first post. So in that sense it is non-apostolic.
Posted by: Kaffinator at November 21, 2005 4:40 PMThank you for your graciousness Matthew, this kind of conversation can be difficult to keep from a spirit of contention and I appreciate your honest intent to "keep it clean". I'll just say, I mentioned Ireneaus because he is worthy of some respect as an acknowledged Christian saint. His words should carry some weight for all of us. (Even so, he is not infallible—after all it is known that he quoted from the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture, even though both of us would consider that work rightly excluded from the canon.) Again thank you for the dialogue.
And Rafa, thanks for the very kind words (which I almost lost in the shuffle!). For clarification purposes I am not Roman Catholic, but a member of a Baptist congregation. You asked why is this an important discussion? Well, the question of the proper role of tradition does stand at the heart of our division. Roman Catholics argue that tradition is equally normative with scripture, while many others, such as myself, believe that tradition is helpful, but not infallible. (Still others believe tradition is fundamentally unhelpful, I do not cast my lot with these.) Catholic apologists often argue that special teachings were delivered orally through tradition that we do not possess in scripture. But did those teachings actually originate from the apostles? If not, then we have that certain apostles, who were Christian by all accounts, yet neither required such teachings or advocated them. Therefore I take exception to those who would claim my salvation hinges on additional teachings which were not "once for all" delivered through the Apostles.
I think I understand the reticence from the RC side to admit that there are no specific apostolic, essential, non-scriptural teachings; even if none can be named, to admit this is to admit a sort of compromise into the word "apostolic". If one believes that the Roman Church alone carries on "apostolic" authority, then it certainly has the power to designate additional doctrine that the apostles never themselves taught. Basically, you either accept this authority or you don't. Just like "Sola Scriptura", "Sola Magisterium" can't really be proven, it is rather an underlying axiom that undergirds our systems of rational thought. We can look at their implications and effects, which is why you get RCers saying "look, look, at the multiplicity and division within Protestantism" and why you have SS reformers saying "look, look, at the smug arrogance of the RC defenders of abusive non-scriptural practices like indulgences and mandatory celibacy" and so forth.
It was my hope that by entering into this dialogue I could refine my understanding of the Roman Catholic view of tradition. I think this has been accomplished to some extent. I thank everyone who has participated in the discussion and wish you all well.
In sure hope of salvation in Him,
Kaff
Kaff,
I'll begin by saying thank you for your graciousness in this dialogue. You stayed focused on this topic and I, for one, really appreciate that.
I do wish to comment on your last remarks to me:
Second is "we both rely completely on ...Apostolic Tradition". I believe you use the term "Apostolic Tradition" to mean "tradition carried on by the Roman-centered tradition which alone carries with it by succession the full authority of the apostles," and, further, you hold that it is only by that authority by which we can know which books are inspired. Yet we know that long before any Roman council ever convened on the matter, there was already a broad consensus throughout the church over the makeup of the canon. Early (pre-200 AD) saints such as Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus quoted from the gospels and epistles and often referred to them directly as "scripture". So I would say something like "I rely on the consensus of the saints of God to determine which books are actuall