Fr.Z: "We must deny to Protestantism any right to use the Bible..."

[Hodos]

Yes, of course, but Jesus spent every day for three years training the Apostles and teaching them about the Kingdom, not to mention the 40 days before His ascension. They had an inside track to the will of God that the Jewish authorities did not, don’t you think?

That is irrelevant to the question at hand. Unless you are equating yourself to the apostles.

I agree with you. The challenge then becomes, how does one decide who is “in step” with Christ, and who is “out”?

I would look directly at the apostolic teachings as they were faithfully handed down.

 

[guanophore]

That is irrelevant to the question at hand. Unless you are equating yourself to the apostles.

You may be right, but the interpretation of Scripture was entrusted to the Apostles, and they, in turn, passed this authority to their successors, the Bishops. The promise of Jesus to lead the Church into “all Truth” has been preserved through the Apostolic succession.

I would look directly at the apostolic teachings as they were faithfully handed down.

Which is where we come to the topic of the thread. During the Protestant Reformation, whole communities/nations were severed from the paradosis (handing down of the teachings). New teachings were invented, and each time there is a split, there is a further drift away from what was deposited once and for all to the Church.

Jesus did not write a book and expect us to read it and figure it out by ourselves. He created a Church, and placed His Holy Spirit within her to protect her from error.

15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. That is why it is best understood within its context, which is the Catholic faith.

 

[Hodos]

You may be right, but the interpretation of Scripture was entrusted to the Apostles, and they, in turn, passed this authority to their successors, the Bishops. The promise of Jesus to lead the Church into “all Truth” has been preserved through the Apostolic succession.

We would differ in that I don’t believe that apostolic succession is a pedigree, but the demonstrated faithfulness to the word of God (again, review Galatians). I do agree that God’s word and the teaching of the Church has been faithfully preserved, which is precisely why I don’t buy the line that the only true Church resides in Rome.

Which is where we come to the topic of the thread. During the Protestant Reformation, whole communities/nations were severed from the paradosis (handing down of the teachings). New teachings were invented, and each time there is a split, there is a further drift away from what was deposited once and for all to the Church.

I would agree with you here as well, which is why the Reformation happened, to fix the departure of the apostolic teaching away from the gospel. If Rome wanted to fix the split (and this could have been done before the split was realized) she could have examined the scriptures in a counsel and fixed the errors that were introduced over time in doctrine and practice. Unfortunately, she later did have a counsel, but doubled down on many of the problematic unapostolic doctrines and practices that led to schism. It is a sad, sad thing that the Church remains divided 500 years later. With comments like Father Z’s, it is no closer to being reconciled. The only way to heal the schism is to return to the norm of faith and doctrine and discuss, using scripture as the starting point, how doctrine can be faithfully preached and taught. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be an option at this point.

 

[steve-b]

On a related note, I think that Catholic outreach to Protestants should absolutely hammer like crazy at the relationship between the Bible and the authority of the Catholic Church. As a non-Catholic considering the Church, one of the things that I just can’t come up with a Protestant explanation for is the authority of Scripture. If the Protestant table of contents is the authoritative version, then were all Christians prior to Luther heretics for considering the Deuterocanonical books inspired? If that’s not the case, why can’t we throw out other books in the Bible? Or were the Deuterocanonicals inspired until the 1500s, then suddenly became uninspired?

A JW came to the door the other day. He mentioned the “bible” at least 10 times in his presentation, at which point after that, I asked him the question, did he know who gave us the bible? He wasn’t expecting THAT question. He didn’t know the answer. To which I asked why didn’t he know? It was a very interesting conversation after that.

 

[guanophore]

We would differ in that I don’t believe that apostolic succession is a pedigree, but the demonstrated faithfulness to the word of God (again, review Galatians).

I am not sure how you are using the term “pedigree” here. We can see apostolic succession already in the Scriptures:

“…and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.”
2 Timothy 2:2

Here we see the line of succession. Jesus ordains Paul an Apostle, and he ordained Timothy, the youngest Bishop, and instructs Timothy to pass the deposit of faith to faithful people who can then teach others.

Catholics call this the Sacrament of Holy Orders, whereby those faithful persons are entrusted with keeping and teaching the faith.

We are in agreement about the demonstrated faithfulness. The process for preparing to receive Holy Orders is very long and rigorous. As we have seen by recent news events, it does not weed out all the bad apples, but the goal is to prepare faithful persons who can teach others.

which is precisely why I don’t buy the line that the only true Church resides in Rome.

Jesus only founded One Church, and only has One Body. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church.

I would agree with you here as well, which is why the Reformation happened, to fix the departure of the apostolic teaching away from the gospel.

I think political and economic power were as much, if not more, factors than any doctrine. Men are always in need of reform, but the teachings of Christ are not. The invention of new doctrines is what has spawned the fragmentation that exists today.

If Rome wanted to fix the split (and this could have been done before the split was realized) she could have examined the scriptures in a counsel and fixed the errors that were introduced over time in doctrine and practice.

Certainly any sinful behavior of men can be prevented, and reform of egregious practices was long overdue. Had Luther been given a better ear, perhaps we would not be where we are today. The arrogance of certain leaders was then, as much as it was in the early Church, bearing the fruit of division.

Unfortunately, she later did have a counsel, but doubled down on many of the problematic unapostolic doctrines and practices that led to schism.

Well, we see it differently. Perhaps, the deeper you get into your family history, you may see it differently also!

 

[guanophore]

With comments like Father Z’s, it is no closer to being reconciled.

Although I think the intention/meaning makes some sense, I do agree with you that such statements, so easily misconstrued, are more likely to give offense and create animosity. This does nothing to heal the wounds to the body of Christ. It is reminiscent of Leo X, whose pompous attitude toward Luther drove more wedges.

The only way to heal the schism is to return to the norm of faith and doctrine and discuss, using scripture as the starting point, how doctrine can be faithfully preached and taught. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be an option at this point.

Yes and no. Catholics are not at liberty to jettison the deposit of faith which has been entrusted to the Church. Sola Scriptura was never part of that deposit. However, we are all in agreement that Scripture is a starting point, and that no doctrine can be faithfully preached and taught that is not enveloped by the Scriptures.

Jesus is the Head of His One Body, the Church, and all things are possible through Him. Despite the fact that some of us cannot see how unity will occur, this is His intention for all of us. He wants the world to know Him by our love for one another, so that is where we must all begin.

 

[Hodos]

Again, Galatians demonstrates that apostolic succession is not the primary concern. It is the faithful preaching and teaching of the gospel. If you read Paul you will find that even some from within the church were unfaithful in doctrine and practice and required correction. If apostolic succession prevents heterodoxy or heresy, how do you explain individuals such as Eusebius of Nicomedia and Honorius? Would you obey their teachings? Both were bishops supposedly with a line on apostolic succession.

 

[prayerrider]

I think I get what he’s saying, and I don’t have a problem with it at all.

 

[guanophore]

Again, Galatians demonstrates that apostolic succession is not the primary concern.

No, it demonstrates the opposite. It shows two Apostles, one of whom is holding the other accountable to the One Faith deposited once for all to the Church. It also shows that persons “from James” who were acting outside of the Apostolic faith were leading others into hypocrisy.

It is the faithful preaching and teaching of the gospel.

These two are not mutually exclusive. Those to whom the One Faith has been committed through Apostolic succession are obligated to faithful preaching and teaching of the gospel. If you look at the structure of the early Church in the ante-Nicean fathers, you will see that it is all organized around the Apostolic Succession.

If you read Paul you will find that even some from within the church were unfaithful in doctrine and practice and required correction.

Of course! Human beings are always in need of reform and correction. The doctrines of Christ, however, are not. It was the creation of new doctrines at the Reformation that has spawned fractioning and division.

If apostolic succession prevents heterodoxy or heresy, how do you explain individuals such as Eusebius of Nicomedia and Honorius?

I think you just answered this yourself. Individuals may stray, but the doctrine of Christ is infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

Would you obey their teachings? Both were bishops supposedly with a line on apostolic succession.

Bishops may err (including popes), priests may err. Being in the line of Apostolic Succession does not make one impeccable.

 

[angel12]

I think I get what he’s saying, and I don’t have a problem with it at all.

Same here, even though I haven’t been much of a fan of his lately. He’s spot-on here.

 

[Hodos]

Yes and no. Catholics are not at liberty to jettison the deposit of faith which has been entrusted to the Church.

But they did jettison justification by grace through faith. This is exactly what Paul is speaking abou

No, it demonstrates the opposite. It shows two Apostles, one of whom is holding the other accountable to the One Faith deposited once for all to the Church.

Exactly, it is the deposit of faith that is being emphasized here, not the infallibility of the office.

The doctrines of Christ, however, are not. It was the creation of new doctrines at the Reformation that has spawned fractioning and division.

No, it was the clarification of the deposit of faith that had always been contained within the scriptures, and it was correcting a movement away from that deposit of faith. If you look at the history of the early Church, what we see is that the early creedal statements were formed to address issues with Christology and Pneumatology, both important subjects. However, the issue of justification pre-Nicaea was rarely talked about. What is interesting is that Clement, one of the sub-apostolic fathers wrote about justification in the same terms the Reformers did, as did guys like Ambrose, and Chrysostom.

I think you just answered this yourself. Individuals may stray, but the doctrine of Christ is infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

I agree that the doctrine of Christ was received, not determined by the Church. The issue is that the Church has not always been faithful to those doctrines, requiring correction. What do you think the councils were supposed to address? Did we just get together to hang out on the Roman Emperor’s dime? Or were doctrinal corrections or declarations being made?

Bishops may err (including popes), priests may err. Being in the line of Apostolic Succession does not make one impeccable.

Thank you for granting that. At least that is intellectually honest.

 

[HopkinsReb]

But they did jettison justification by grace through faith. This is exactly what Paul is speaking abou

guanophore:

Quick, how many Catholics here don’t believe that we are justified by grace through faith? Even if you believe that this is an incomplete formulation, or that the word “faith” requires some additional definition.

 

[guanophore]

But they did jettison justification by grace through faith.

I am sure there have always been, and still are, “Catholics” who deny the teachings of the faith that were handed down to us by the Apostles. But the Church has always taught that we are justified by grace, through faith. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification finally clears the air over misunderstandings that existed in Luther’s time about this.

The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

“…he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Titus 3:5

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. Eph 2

These things are written in the NT because they reflect Catholic faith.

Exactly, it is the deposit of faith that is being emphasized here, not the infallibility of the office.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about infallibility. It does not equal impeccability. The gift of infallibility is a “negative” gift - it prevents the Church from falling into error, by which she would pass into the gates of hell.

Peter was acting against his own infallible teaching. The gift of infallibility does not prevent a person from acting badly.

No, it was the clarification of the deposit of faith that had always been contained within the scriptures, and it was correcting a movement away from that deposit of faith.

Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two strands of divine revelation that work together, and compliment one another. Without Sacred Tradition, Scripture is easily misunderstood (this is why we have so many divisions today). Without Scripture, Sacred Tradition cannot be properly implemented. They were never meant to be separated from one another, as they were during the Reformation.

 

[guanophore]

What is interesting is that Clement, one of the sub-apostolic fathers wrote about justification in the same terms the Reformers did, as did guys like Ambrose, and Chrysostom.

Indeed! Justification by grace through faith has always been, and will always be, Catholic. The truth of the Once for all Divine Deposit of faith is not defined by those who depart from it.

The issue is that the Church has not always been faithful to those doctrines, requiring correction.

The “Church” cannot sin, or err. Her head is Christ, and her soul is the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that prevent her from error, not the human. People are not always faithful, and people require constant correction, and reform. The doctrines that where infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit did not need to be reformed.

What do you think the councils were supposed to address?

Misunderstandings and heresies. People need correction and reformation. The doctrine, which is without error, needs to be clarified when people are drifting.

Did we just get together to hang out on the Roman Emperor’s dime? Or were doctrinal corrections or declarations being made?

Maybe both? The doctrine did not need to be corrected. People’s understanding of it is what needed to be corrected.

The reason we call it “once for all” is that nothing is added or subtracted. Corrections and declarations are not “changes” or inventions of new and different doctrines that did not exist before. For example, although the term “Trinity” was not adopted until 325 AD, it was not a new concept. It had always been the believe of the Church.

Quick, how many Catholics here don’t believe that we are justified by grace through faith? Even if you believe that this is an incomplete formulation, or that the word “faith” requires some additional definition.

If our faith did not require some additional definition, we would not need a Catechism! But it has always been odd to me that evangelicals will read Eph. 2:8-9 and stop before verse 10.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.” Eph. 2:8-10

The grace that saves us is not to be separated from the grace that produces the good works in us for which we are saved. Protestants accuse Catholics of “conflating” justification and sanctification, but for us, it is one continuous flow. One who is justified by grace through faith will move in the good works which He has prepared as our way of life.

 

[Hodos]

am sure there have always been, and still are, “Catholics” who deny the teachings of the faith that were handed down to us by the Apostles. But the Church has always taught that we are justified by grace, through faith. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification finally clears the air over misunderstandings that existed in Luther’s time about this.

No it did not. The joint declaration stated what was believed by both sides, and both sides agreed that this was the belief of both sides, but this issue was not reconciled. Rather both sides walked away and agreed to disagree.

 

[guanophore]

No it did not. The joint declaration stated what was believed by both sides, and both sides agreed that this was the belief of both sides, but this issue was not reconciled. Rather both sides walked away and agreed to disagree.

I agree that reconciliation still awaits us, but the document did clarify what was misunderstood/wrongly propagated in Germany by certain persons with whom Luther took issue.

It is true that many of Luther’s ideas departed from the deposit of faith, and since Catholics are not at liberty to jettison what we have received, we cannot espouse certain Lutheran doctrines. Nevertheless, Lutherans and Catholics will agree that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not of any works of righteousness on our part. We cannot “earn” grace, or work our way to heaven.

 

[Hodos]

It is true that many of Luther’s ideas departed from the deposit of faith, and since Catholics are not at liberty to jettison what we have received, we cannot espouse certain Lutheran doctrines.

Again we will have to agree to disagree here.

 

[guanophore]

Again we will have to agree to disagree here.

Most likely. It would be contraindicated for Catholics to think that the Successor of Peter is the antichrist!

 

[Gorgias]

Again we will have to agree to disagree here.

Umm… which part are you disagreeing with? That “many of Luther’s ideas departed from the deposit of faith”, or that “Catholics are not a liberty to jettison [Church doctrines]”?

Just curious…

 

[Hodos]

Both. I could make a case for the orthodoxy of Lutheran doctrine and that Catholics are at liberty to change their doctrine and practice.