Challenge to Protestants: Why the Bible?(2)

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

1. I don’t think anyone says that the early church didn’t have Scripture only that they didn’t have the defined canon of Scripture we have today.

Then they should say that. But that’s not what they say. The posts on this thread are witness to that. Clearly some Catholics have trouble distinguishing between these two things–and an unhealthy obsession with authority and certainty is the reason.

arieh0310:

The early church treated many other works as “scripture” like reading the epistles of Clement at mass.

I wouldn’t say “many other.” Certainly there was some uncertainty for a while.

arieh0310:

Although there was certainly scriptural books floating around in the early church there were also heretical books circulating as well (like the gnostic gospels) and it was the Church that defined which ones were inspired.

Absolutely. But the Church claimed to be simply recognizing which books fit the criteria of apostolicity. The early Church would have been horrified at the suggestion (made by some intemperate Catholic apologists) that she somehow gave the books of the Bible their authority.

Scriptural books were not simply “floating around.” By the 2nd century the Four Gospels and the letters of Paul were accepted as canonical. The continuing debates concerned more peripheral books.

arieh0310:

1. Without an infallible Church you would end up with more than just a “fallible collection of infallible books” you could easily end up with a “fallible collection of fallible books”.

“Would” and “could” are not the same thing. On a noninfallibilist view, if the Church were to make a serious mistake, the Holy Spirit would guide her to correct the mistake. The longer something has been accepted, and the more universally it has been accepted, and the more important the issue is, the smaller the chance (from our point of view living after the time the decision was made) that the Church got it wrong. There is simply no clear-cut, well-defined way to be sure that the Church has got it right. This scares people. Fine. We live in a scary world. It’s dangerous and presumptuous to build your theology on a hypothetical assumption concerning what God would or would not permit.

arieh0310:

Also, why is an obsession with epistemology wrong? If we do not have an account of how we know things we will just end up with an esoteric faith.

I don’t follow that at all. For most people, epistemology is rather esoteric. The Western obsession with epistemology has taken us away from the concrete realities of the Faith and led us into endless debates about how we know what we know.

We don’t need a general theory of infallibility in order to receive reliable guidance from the Spirit as needed. When you ask the question “how do you know that . . . .” the answer is going to be different depending on the specific issue. Diehard infallibilists want a castiron answer that will produce a true result for every issue to which it is applied. I see no reason to think that God has given us that kind of a mechanism (except the concrete fact that the august See of Rome claims to be in possession of it; but given the convergence of Orthodox and Protestants in denying this claim, I remain dubious).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

John666:

Contarini,

Thank you! I truly do not hear this enough coming from a Protestant. For MANY, it is too humbling for them to admit.

Bless you,

Joe

I’m hardly a typical Protestant. I call myself one only because I am one by affiliation, and because Catholicism (at least orthodox Catholicism of the kind defended on this board) is an all-or-nothing deal. You can be 95% Catholic but still be Protestant. And roughly speaking that’s my situation and that of many other Protestants. If I were to weigh classical Protestantism (as represented by Calvin, say) and Tridentine Catholicism and try to decide which was more correct, Catholicism would win easily. But that’s not how it works. So I remain a high-church, ecumenical, moderate Protestant who is rather obsessed with Catholicism!

Edwin

 

[scylla]

You are entertaining to read Contarini and you are right you are hardly typical.

Scylla

 

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

So, it was Rome’s fault that they didn’t allow Henry VIII to get a divorce or become head of the church in England?

First of all, divorce was not the issue between Henry and Rome (he wanted an annulment on the grounds that his marriage was invalid). Henry’s desire for control over the Church was wrong, but the popes of that era were making excessive claims of authority, so there were faults on both sides there. Today the issue has been clarified by the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility and the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Roman See. This is the real issue. I am not claiming for an instant that the errors are all on the Catholic side. Rather, the ecumenical Protestant position as I understand it is that all churches have some errors and need to be willing to learn from each other and (most importantly) from Holy Scripture and our common heritage as Christians.

arieh0310:

Is it also Rome’s fault that they do not accept female priests, practicing gay clergy, divorce and remarriage, and contraception?

Homosexuality, divorce/remarriage, and contraception, are not Protestant/Catholic issues per se. As Catholics are fond of pointing out, Protestant churches held an equally strict view of contraception until the 20th century. This was not one of the original church-dividing issues. I myself would be fully willing to submit to the Catholic Church on this particular point, although there are legitimate questions to be raised about the differences between nonabortifacient ABC and NFP, and most seriously about Rome’s refusal to allow condoms even to save lives.

Reformed Protestants (not Anglicans, actually, contrary to the stereotype) did hold a somewhat laxer view of divorce than Catholics from the beginning, but it was still quite strict (only on the basis of adultery or desertion). Divorce is an extremely difficult issue, and I don’t think any church has a perfect solution. The Orthodox approach is probably as good as any. The Catholic practice appears semi-Donatist to me, in applying the criterion of intention (for the validity of the sacrament of marriage) in an extremely strict way so as to allow for a relatively generous anullment policy. I have serious doubts about the theological merits of this approach, and this makes me think that traditional Protestants and the Orthodox are not too far off.

I find the theological arguments for women’s ordination convincing, but I am dubious about our willingness (“we” being mainline Protestants generally) to charge ahead without the consent of the Universal Church (particularly the Roman See).

I do not think that non-celibate gay clergy should be ordained. This is still a matter of debate among Anglicans, as you know. The Anglican Communion as a whole remains orthodox on this point–the Episcopal Church is another matter. I am still struggling with where this leaves me. However, I would point out that there are rules on the books in the Roman Communion forbidding the ordination of anyone with a same-sex orientation, however chaste they may be. There is a move recently to enforce these rules. I think that this is a disastrous mistake.

 

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

Was it Rome that separated from the German Reformers and the Anglicans?

Well yes, of course. Rome excommunicated Luther, and later Elizabeth I. The division was not all on one side.

arieh0310:

Was it also Rome that seperated from the Gnostics, Montanists, Arians, Nestorians, etc?

The role of Rome varied–but certainly Rome rejected these heretics. Gnostics and Arians were rightly rejected. Montanists appear not to have desired reunion. How heretical they were remains unclear to me. In the case of Nestorians, I think that the “Catholic” side may bear some blame for the schism, though the fault there would lie with Alexandria rather than Rome. (Indeed, many Easterners saw Rome as too friendly to Nestorianism, and that was a partial cause of the Monophysite schism.)

arieh0310:

Do you think it insensitive of Rome to reject the idea of symbolic communion and baptism promulgated by Evangelicals?

First of all, I never said anything about being “insensitive.” Please do not ascribe politically correct jargon to me without good cause. The question is not whether Rome is “sensitive” but whether Rome is right–not just in the doctrinal issue but in seeing the issue in question as warranting separation from those who are in error. (Not all errors need be church-dividing.)
I would agree that those who see the sacraments as purely apostolic are in significant conflict with the Church’s Tradition, and I do not blame the Roman See for refusing to accept them into full communion. However, there is a huge space between a purely symbolic view of the sacraments and the dogma of transubstantiation. Many of us fall somewhere in that space. My own view is that all those who confess that Christ is truly received in the Eucharist and that adoration of Christ in the Eucharist is not idolatry (whether or not they see it as appropriate) are in essential agreement with the Catholic Faith on this point.

arieh0310:

Should the Catholic Church throw our all truth for the sake of unity?

Of course not. Straw men get us nowhere. I’m not talking about compromising truth for the sake of unity. The question is whether all the teachings of the Catholic Church are in fact true, and further whether all the points at issue are points on which the Church needs to have a defined dogma.

Doctrines which I fear may be downright false would include Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. Doctrines I’m not sure need to be dogmatized form a much longer list:

Transubstantiation (as distinct from the Real Presence)
The Assumption (I don’t see much at stake doctrinally here one way or the other)
Purgatory
Asking for the intercession of the saints

Neither of these lists are exhaustive, but hopefully they will give you an idea of where I stand.

Edwin

 

[John666]

Quote:
Originally Posted by arieh0310
Was it Rome that separated from the German Reformers and the Anglicans?

Contarini
Well yes, of course. Rome excommunicated Luther, and later Elizabeth I. The division was not all on one side.

Whoa Contarini . WRONG on this point. Martin Luther acknowledged HE seperated himself from Rome!! He would not renounce what he had wriitten. THEY seperated from the Church. Can you try and justify your statement?

Blessings,

Joe

 

[arieh0310]

Contarini,

I don’t have the energy to respond to your entire tome (nor do I have the proper resources as I have only been investigating Catholicism since April). However, I think I am understanding your general theory as to why Protestants should consider the Bible inspired and inerrant: General consensus. Seems there are a lot of religions that can offer general consensuses.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jimmy:

What makes the apostles word true though? Without the testament of the Church, the apostles words are no different than those of any other ancient Roman.

This has the disadvantage of ignoring - or seeming to ignore - the Holy Spirit; because the exercise of the authority as such by the Church is no guarantee of truth; for authority is exercised in the CC for many other things than teaching.​

All the Church can do is recognise an authority not within its own control, one to which it must be submissive and obedient, which rules it and is not ruled by it - i.e., the authority of God: which is infinite. The Church exercises an authority which is Divine; but does not exercise the totality of what this authority is; instead, Divine authority works through the Church, in an incomplete way, because the Church is incomplete; because the Church is not God.

And this Divine authority in the Church, made known by the Spirit of Truth, proposes the inspired books to the Church from within the Church for recognition by the Church -

by the People of God who are the members of Christ

and

by those with authority to teach them: so there is one authority of God, working in different ways in the Church. They don’t work in separation from the rest of the People of God; they have a different vocation from them, which is that of teaching & governing & sanctifying them, for the good of all & the Glory of God. The bishops would be unable to recognise what the Spirit wishes to be recognised as inspired, if they were not united with the people whose use of the books is a sign that those books are inspired.

IOW - the Church cannot do or be anything with God: and God is too elusive to be controlled by His Church. So the testimony of the Church can never do away with the need to have faith in God - faith, can never be turned into knowledge on earth, for if it were knowledge it would not be faith.

IMO, the Westminster Confession’s teaching is as good as any:

1.5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem (13) of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.b

*a. 1 Tim 3:15. • b. Isa 59:21; John 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27.

bible-researcher.com/wescontext.html ##
*

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

arieh0310:

Contarini,

I don’t have the energy to respond to your entire tome (nor do I have the proper resources as I have only been investigating Catholicism since April). However, I think I am understanding your general theory as to why Protestants should consider the Bible inspired and inerrant: General consensus. Seems there are a lot of religions that can offer general consensuses.

There’s nothing wrong in that - Catholic dogmatic theology has long relied on the “unanimous consensus of the Fathers” as a sign that a doctrine is a part of the deposit of faith.​

People can’t with consistency make merry over Protestant divisions, as a proof that Protestantism is purely human - and then complain that the existence of a Protestant consensus on the Bible is a sign that Protestantism is purely human.

Perhaps part of the trouble is that different parts of the Bible evaluate agreement and division in different ways. ##

 

[Contarini]

John666:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arieh0310
Was it Rome that separated from the German Reformers and the Anglicans?

Whoa Contarini . WRONG on this point. Martin Luther acknowledged HE seperated himself from Rome!! He would not renounce what he had wriitten. THEY seperated from the Church. Can you try and justify your statement?

Blessings,

Joe

Are you saying that excommunicating someone and denouncing them as a wild boar in the Lord’s vineyard doesn’t constitute “separation”?

Claiming that Rome didn’t “separate from the Reformers” is as silly as claiming that the Reformers “didn’t leave; they were kicked out.” Both sides saw the other as evil. Both sides were (with some exceptions) eager to denounce the other. This seems obvious to me. I’m not sure why it would even be controversial. The question is which, if either, was right in doing so. To say that the Reformers should not have left is not to say that Rome was right to excommunicate them. I can disagree with their evaluation of Rome and also disagree with Rome’s evaluation of them.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

Contarini,

I don’t have the energy to respond to your entire tome (nor do I have the proper resources as I have only been investigating Catholicism since April). However, I think I am understanding your general theory as to why Protestants should consider the Bible inspired and inerrant: General consensus. Seems there are a lot of religions that can offer general consensuses.

I’m not sure how that’s a relevant point. I’m not suggesting that we should be Christians because Christianity can offer a general consensus. I think we should be Christians because Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. Accepting that, we must then put a lot of weight on the general consensus of those who also believe in Christ.

If God is leading you into Catholicism, then God bless you. I sometimes wish I had just charged on in myself when I first became interested. But that isn’t the way I’ve been led. (Even if it was my weakness that led me to hesitate, God’s providence works with our weakness as well.) And now things seem much more complicated. I don’t know that I wish that on you. But it is reality as I see it.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[arieh0310]

Contarini:

I’m not sure how that’s a relevant point. I’m not suggesting that we should be Christians because Christianity can offer a general consensus. I think we should be Christians because Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. Accepting that, we must then put a lot of weight on the general consensus of those who also believe in Christ.

If God is leading you into Catholicism, then God bless you. I sometimes wish I had just charged on in myself when I first became interested. But that isn’t the way I’ve been led. (Even if it was my weakness that led me to hesitate, God’s providence works with our weakness as well.) And now things seem much more complicated. I don’t know that I wish that on you. But it is reality as I see it.

In Christ,

Edwin

Augustine once said:“I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”
I think the Lord is leading me to the Catholic Church. She seems to have the most satifying answers to all my theological questions. She seems the most deeply rooted in Scripture, history, and Christ. But I am still on my journey and that is why I desire these debates.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Contarini:

First of all, divorce was not the issue between Henry and Rome (he wanted an annulment on the grounds that his marriage was invalid). Henry’s desire for control over the Church was wrong, but the popes of that era were making excessive claims of authority, so there were faults on both sides there. Today the issue has been clarified by the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility and the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Roman See. This is the real issue. I am not claiming for an instant that the errors are all on the Catholic side. Rather, the ecumenical Protestant position as I understand it is that all churches have some errors and need to be willing to learn from each other and (most importantly) from Holy Scripture and our common heritage as Christians.

Thanks Ed, for saying that and getting to the real issues. I mentioned that a few months ago and got pooh-poohed for it.

O+

 

[John666]

Contarini wrote,

Are you saying that excommunicating someone and denouncing them as a wild boar in the Lord’s vineyard doesn’t constitute “separation”?

YES. He CHOSE it. Again, Martin Luther was told to renounce his heretical teachings or the Church would have no other choice BUT to excommunicate him. Martin Luther would not recant, so HE freely CHOSE to seperate HIMSELF.

Sheesh, the Church did not seperate HERSELF from Luther! If this is your point and you hold to it … I give up, I can’t change your mind. And the facts will not change either. The Prodical Son never came back home.

Claiming that Rome didn’t “separate from the Reformers” is as silly as claiming that the Reformers “didn’t leave; they were kicked out.”

Yes, THEY chose their OWN outcome, Contarini. They knew the Church’s Authority AND the consequences. The TRUE Reformers stayed IN the Church and DID help reform it (thanks be to God) … as is true throughout. The Church constantly needs reformed. It is human AND Divine.

Bless you,

Joe

 

[Contarini]

John666:

Contarini wrote,

YES. He CHOSE it. Again, Martin Luther was told to renounce his heretical teachings or the Church would have no other choice BUT to excommunicate him. Martin Luther would not recant, so HE freely CHOSE to seperate HIMSELF.

Sheesh, the Church did not seperate HERSELF from Luther! If this is your point and you hold to it … I give up, I can’t change your mind. And the facts will not change either. The Prodical Son never came back home.

Well, I wish you would give up because you saw the silliness of the point you are trying to maintain. To choose to exercise discipline is to separate oneself from those whom one is disciplining. That should be self-evident. Punishment, however legitimate, is not automatic.

I repeat: the relevant and interesting question is not who separated from whom, but which side if either was right in doing so. Believing as I do that neither side was in fact heretical, I think both sides were wrong in their beliefs about the other.

Edwin

 

[But_for_Grace]

John666 & Contarini - not to steal your guy’s wind, but isn’t it intresting how a conversation about what is esentially the origin of Sola Scriptora has become a debate over Luther? Doesn’t this seem to show a much deeper problem that either of you have touched upon yet…

Can the bible be intreperated correctly outside of tradition (to use the Catholic term). Without paying attention to the Church Fathers, especially the Ante-Nicean Fathers, can we really understand what the NT authors meant?

The Catholic Church has taught the same thing for 2000 years and I am sorry if I tread on anyone toes here but anyone who says diffrently needs to go back and read the Church Fathers, the Church Councils, and Papal Encyplicals and see how consistent they are with one another. This is the faith of the apostles and it is still believed today.

Church Fathers - catholicfirst.com/churchfathersindex.cfm
Church Councils - dailycatholic.org/councils.htm
Papal Encyplicals - papalencyclicals.net/all.htm

 

[teajay]

I just wanted to contribute to this discussion because it looks interesting.

I think that the issue of infallibility is sometimes confused. From my perspective, it is not an issue of certainty, but one of justice or fairness.

While it is true that the Church’s authority need not be infallible, a fallible authority would at least occasionally bind believers to do wrong. Civil authorities do this all the time. The best that we can get from them is that the frequency of error is minimised to the greatest extent humanly possible. For example, innocent people will ALWAYS be convicted. Justice is about minimising the rate (through due process for example).

So if the Church has authority, the next question is whether it is an infallible authority or not. If it isn’t, then you’re essentially saying that God has delegated His authority to a body that will at least occasionally get it wrong. Each relevant decision will carry the same force as if God Himself spoke it. You will be bound to follow it. Yet you will be doing wrong. Because if you get to decide when to follow it or not then it is not a real authority at all. So you must either follow it, truthfully conclude it has no authority at all, or disobey it.

So to me, the issue of infallibility is one of fairness. God delegated to the Church His authority and provided it with a mechanism that would ensure that it would always be right. That mechanism is the infallibility of the Church (in certain prescribed circumstances).

But having said that, I’m halfway through some articles on political legitimacy so I hope to add nuance to my view.

p.s. My view on this issue is probably only 10 or 20 % developed, so feel free to say where you think its wrong.

 

[Contarini]

But for Grace:

John666 & Contarini - not to steal your guy’s wind, but isn’t it intresting how a conversation about what is esentially the origin of Sola Scriptora has become a debate over Luther?

Well, you should ask John666 about that, not me.Like many conservative Catholics, he seems to think that any discussion of the Protestant-Catholic division resolves into a discussion of the merits of Luther. I simply made the remark that Protestants who think as I do would be quite willing for reunion with Rome if it were not for the conditions Rome places on such reunion. And of course he took that to be an attack on Rome, which it wasn’t particularly. I’m willing to follow the discussion where it leads, but I’m also quite happy to get back to the original topic.
But for Grace:

Can the bible be intreperated correctly outside of tradition (to use the Catholic term).

No. Indeed, for most of us it’s impossible to interpret the Bible at all (correctly or incorrectly) apart from tradition (perhaps someone in China who had never heard of Christianity could do so, but no one in the West could). But tradition is hardly monolithic. That’s the problem with a simplistic Catholic perspective (as the disregard of tradition is the problem with a simplistic Protestant perspective).
But for Grace:

Without paying attention to the Church Fathers, especially the Ante-Nicean Fathers, can we really understand what the NT authors meant?

Not fully anyway.
But for Grace:

The Catholic Church has taught the same thing for 2000 years and I am sorry if I tread on anyone toes here but anyone who says diffrently needs to go back and read the Church Fathers, the Church Councils, and Papal Encyplicals and see how consistent they are with one another.

Of course if you read the Fathers through the lens of later Catholic teaching, determined to see only the continuities, then that is what you will find. If you don’t read the patristic texts with those particular spectacles, then you’ll see things rather differently.

More recent papal teachings are impressive in their continuity with the Fathers (post-Vatican II especially–and in the current Pope we have an impressive patristics scholar who is likely to produce encyclicals more deeply imbued with the spirit of the Fathers than anything Western Christendom has seen for centuries). But there are plenty of things in papal teachings that are a bit harder to reconcile. Try for instance Clement XI’s bull Unigenitus, issued 1713. As you can see, Clement condemned a hundred propositions from the Jansenist writer Quesnel. Most of these could have come (and some did come) from the writings of St. Augustine. See for instance no. 3. That’s a classic Augustinian maxim–in fact it’s a version of the statement with which the heretic Pelagius took issue, starting the Pelagian controversy (da quod iubes, et iube quod vis; “give what you command, and command what you will,” which is a quote from Confessions 10.1).

Worse yet are the condemnations of propositions 79-85. These really amount to nothing more but the patristic maxim (from St. Jerome) “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” This maxim, as you probably know, is explicitly cited by Vatican II and by the Catechism–a very encouraging sign from a Protestant point of view, but hardly a mark of the perfect consistency you claim.

And again, what’s wrong with proposition 86? All the liturgical reforms that issued from Vatican II had this principle in mind. Again, you have to choose between the Fathers and the modern Catholic Church on the one hand, and Clement XI on the other.

This is by no means the only papal document that could be criticized in this way. Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, expresses some discomfort with the patristic maxim “legem credendi lex statuat orandi” (the rule of prayer establishes the rule of belief). Admittedly, he doesn’t reject it altogether, but he prefers to turn it around and say 'lex credendi legem statuat orandi" (the rule of faith establishes the rule of prayer). This is a much trickier case than the other, and Pius’s formulation could certainly be defended. But I’d argue that even here we have less than perfect consistency with the Fathers.

Please let’s not turn this into a discussion of the limits of papal infallibility. I’m sure that the condemnations in Unigenitus don’t meet the requirements for infallibility. I’m not attacking the claim of infallibility, which really needn’t interest anyone not already disposed to accept Catholic claims. For such people, it’s easy to define as non-infallible those papal teachings that contradict the Tradition. My only point is that, infallible or fallible, such teachings do exist, making your claim of perfect consistency an empty boast.

Edwin

 

[ChrisR246]

Contarini:

1. It is often claimed that early Christians had “no Bible” before the late 4th century just because the NT canon wasn’t fully determined till then. This supposedly shows that the Church is somehow prior to Scripture both chronologically and in importance.

In the moments just after Christ Ascended into Heaven, not one word of the NT had been written, but the Church existed.

Contarini:

and most seriously about Rome’s refusal to allow condoms even to save lives

Has there been some instance where you wanted to throw a drowning man a condom and some priest stopped you? Condoms do not “save lives”. A condom user is only in danger because he is engaging in a risky behavior. Abstain from the behavior and his life would not be at risk.

I always find it amazing that “Rome” is the reason people are dying under these circumstances. These people don’t listen to Rome when she says no sex outside or marriage or no homosexual acts, but saying “no condom” everybody hears that and obeys.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Has there been some instance where you wanted to throw a drowning man a condom and some priest stopped you? Condoms do not “save lives”. A condom user is only in danger because he is engaging in a risky behavior. Abstain from the behavior and his life would not be at risk.

I always find it amazing that “Rome” is the reason people are dying under these circumstances. These people don’t listen to Rome when she says no sex outside or marriage or no homosexual acts, but saying “no condom” everybody hears that and obeys.

Amen brother!