Karl Keating's "catholicism and fundamentalism"

[Contarini]

I refer you back to the previously cited CCC 97 and ask (rhetorically) how you can divide the Word of God,

You can’t. That’s why the material sufficiency debate is probably pointless, and DV’s formula “the Church derives her certainty” is better than talking about bits of content scattered here and there. I admit that I have spoken that way, and you’re probably right that this was a mistake. However, I spoke in that way only hypothetically (“any content not found in Scripture”), recognizing that some people do believe that some of the Deposit of Faith is found in Scripture and some isn’t. If you are arguing that the Word of God is indivisible so that (in a sense) even a single passage of Scripture implicitly contains the whole (as the whole Christ is present in every morsel of the Host), I will gladly concede the point.

and even if you could, why one part would be above another.

I don’t think it is. Rather, my claim is that Scripture is the primary *record *of the deposit of faith. If there is any content not found in Scripture (though as I admitted above this is a dubious way of speaking), then that *content *is equal to the content found in Scripture. The difference is that because Scripture is divinely inspired, the form and content are one in a way that is not equally true of other records of the Deposit of Faith.

DV uses the word primary only once

Since I was arguing that DV *implicitly *agrees with me, this is irrelevant. Argue with the implication, not with something I never claimed.

DV is also not quite silent on the makeup of Sacred Scripture.

Again, I can’t see how this is relevant to our disagreement. Shucks, I’m not sure what we are actually disagreeing about. except that you are determined to take issue with my language of “primacy” and “supremacy” applied to Scripture, no matter how I define those terms.

 

[Contarini]

Nobody is talking about this comparison (in bold above) but you.

Read any Protestant polemic against the Catholic view of tradition, and you’ll see how wrong you are. This is the main idea Protestants have always criticized. Dei Verbum opens up a way to make it clear that Protestant criticism is missing the mark. I am simply trying to maintain a form of speech that makes it clear that the orthodox position maintains the primacy of Scripture among the records and means by which the Deposit of Faith is preserved and transmitted.

You can safely resign from the ranks of Prima Scriptura if this is your only “primacy” claim for Scripture.

I really don’t care about any “ranks.” I’ve explained my view, and instead of actually criticizing it you’re trying to prove that it doesn’t correspond to some category in your mind called “Prima Scriptura.” Why should I care? My language is defensible and proper. If you’ll show me who these “Prima Scriptura” people are, then we can talk about whether and how I differ, and whether my language creates unnecessary confusion bet5ween my position and theirs.

As far as I understand it, Prima Scriptura is about a heirarchy of divine revelation,

I don’t think you do understand it. But perhaps you do–in that case I agree with you, although in the past I think I have spoken this way as well. In other words, I take you to be saying that “Prima Scriptura” is the view that the more important bits of revelation are in Scripture and the less important bits may be found elsewhere. This discussion with you has helped clarify in my own mind that (as you are arguing) this is not a valid position. Insofar as anything I’ve said implies this view (though honestly I don’t think it does–as soon as people started pressing me to define my position I defined it in quite different terms, and thereby came to understand it better!), I renounce it.

not the superiority of Sacred Scripture over other Christian writing not divinely inspired.

But obviously uninspired writings can themselves contain the Word of God. So I don’t think the distinction you’re making is as important as you think. An orthodox sermon proclaiming the Gospel contains the Word of God, and that Word is just as true, just as real, as it is when found in Scripture. The difference is that in Scripture form equals content–Scripture contains the Word of God in such a manner as to be itself the Word of God, which cannot be said of any other means by which the Word (in propositional, verbal form–obviously the Sacraments are a different matter) is transmitted to us. It cannot be said of the Church (at least in its hierarchical form), which is the servant and not the master of the Word.

The Church speaks of Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture within Tradition.

I know, which is why I keep saying “Tradition as Dei Verbum defines it” as distinct from the way I tend to define it. I think there are some advantages to using “Tradition” for the whole deposit, but I’m not going to argue over definition.

Together they “**make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God.”
**

True enough, and this on its own would imply that some of the deposit is in Scripture and some in Tradition. But sect. 8 clearly says that the same apostolic preaching is “expressed in a special way” in Scripture and is “preserved” in Tradition. That implies that the two differ in mode rather than in content, though the question of content is left open (as your remarks about “dividing the Word of God” imply, it may be moot).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[colliric]

I had a question for Protestants regarding this book…

Have you had an opportunity to read it? If so, what did you think of the position and arguments he made?

Regards,

JAS

the book was a fantastic read. It answers all my questions about the Catholic faith and where it gets it’s doctrines from. I expected it to do this, but It does it exceptionally.

It helped me leave the pentecostal faith and want to become catholic.

I liked the way the book was structured into 3 distinct sections:

the first few chapters were about Anti-Catholic Literature and it’s many errors and quite bigoted writers.

The middle few chapters covered real Catholic Doctrine, and historical events as opposed to the warped fictional doctrines Fundamentalists believe that catholics believed. It also helped clarify the inquisition and reminded the reader that Fundamentalists were behind similar atrocities themselves(The Salem trials, and other bogus witch-hunts).

The last two chapters oddly do not climax the argument, that happens in Chapters 22 and 23, which are of cause “Marian Beliefs” and “the Inquisition” respectively. But Chapters 24 and 25 are about how to use this book to help fix incorrect interpretations, in other words, how to be an apologist and defend the faith. CH 24 gets into this, while the final chapter is more of an “suggested further reading list”. The book could have ended on CH23 by which it has more than won the argument in the readers mind, but like a good apologetics book it ends bhy saying it is only the beginning of the iceberg of the arguement and you must learn further, not just trusting the book as your only tool.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I think you just gave what the reader was looking for.

 

[Jeanette_L]

It was one of the first three books I read in exploring the Catholic faith in order to refute its apologists. After reading this book and “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic,” I ceased trying to refute Catholicism and started trying to understand it. On “By What Authority”, I had to switch back to protestant stuff to keep from converting to Catholicism.

I didn’t work and now I’m Catholic. Thanks Karl.

I ended up on a similar path as you, with the same books on your list above ending up on my long list of exploratory readings, with the same result, by the way.

So, I would say that Karl’s book is not an insignificant work, it has it’s place, especially for people like myself, who have been in the “Fundamentalist” world at one time and have come out of it, searching for a deeper Christian spirituality; and for fallen away Catholics who have found their way into “Fundamentalism” and possibly have come across this book, it could be a God send for them also.

As for me and my journey home, I say thanks Karl (and the ECF’s, and EWTN, and Pope JP II, and Pope B XVI, … and many, many more) !!!

 

[pnewton]

So Jeanette, how long since you became Catholic? For me it’s been about ten years.

The other person that helped along the way was John MacArthur. I like posting in threads about him that he helped me become catholic. He was one of the Protestants who I have always admired who simply can not defend sola scriptura without adding to the Bible.

I wonder if KK knows how many people he has helped into the faith.

 

[Jeanette_L]

So Jeanette, how long since you became Catholic? For me it’s been about ten years.

The other person that helped along the way was John MacArthur. I like posting in threads about him that he helped me become catholic. He was one of the Protestants who I have always admired who simply can not defend sola scriptura without adding to the Bible.

I wonder if KK knows how many people he has helped into the faith.

I am just a babe.

I was received last Easter (2006). My journey home became apparent (and by that I mean when I became frightened by the thought of where I was headed ) about 3 years ago, starting with watching a very peculiar nun named Mother Angelica and a thundering priest named Father Corapi on EWTN. At the same time I was devouring C.S. Lewis, who I had stumbled upon in my late grandfathers library (a devout fundamentalist, very ironically) which opened my eyes to the ancient liturgical Christian communities and I was in no time hooked on finding out the truth, i.e., who really had the “old time religion” after all?

And KK was definitely in the mix of those who informed me as to the big world of Christianity that I was previously and embarrassingly oblivious to. I will have a lot of people to thank when I get to heaven, it will take me a long time, and thankfully, there will be a limitless amount of it to accomplish this!

 

[Cranch]

Dei Verbum opens up a way to make it clear that Protestant criticism is missing the mark. I am simply trying to maintain a form of speech that makes it clear that the orthodox position maintains the primacy of Scripture among the records and means by which the Deposit of Faith is preserved and transmitted.

You know, you continue to claim Dei Verbum supports your view of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture while at the same time making statements like “which is why I keep saying “Tradition as Dei Verbum defines it” as distinct from the way I tend to define it. I think there are some advantages to using “Tradition” for the whole deposit, but I’m not going to argue over definition.” You co-opt the Catechism’s language for Apostolic Tradition (the transmission of Divine Revelation) and apply it to mere “records and means” that reference the deposit of faith. About Tradition DV teaches: “The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church.” The writings of the Early Church Fathers witnessed to Tradition; they are not themselves the Tradition. Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church is a living thing. I don’t believe your conception of Tradition is the same as the Catholic Church’s.

Dei Verbum everywhere speaks of Sacred Tradition *and* Sacred Scripture.  DV teaches:* "Therefore Christ the Lord…commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel  which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been  promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This  commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances **handed on  what they had received from the lips of Christ***, from living with Him, and from what He did, **or what they had learned through  the prompting of the Holy Spirit**. The commission was fulfilled, **too**, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the  inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them "the authority to teach in their own place." This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face."

And the Catechism reiterates: "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit.* The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.*"

And this from DV bears repeating:* “Sacred tradition and* Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God**, committed to the Church.”

You on the other hand say: “*My claim is that Scripture is the primary record of the deposit of faith. If there is any content not found in Scripture (though as I admitted above this is a dubious way of speaking), then that *content is equal to the content found in Scripture. The difference is that because Scripture is divinely inspired, the form and content are one in a way that is not equally true of other records of the Deposit of Faith.” Here you reserve to Scripture alone the status of Divine Revelation and put yourself at odds with Dei Verbum. Now you will no doubt bring up again “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books” quote, as if that precluded Revelation directly from the mouth of Our Lord to the Apostles. DV again: "Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3)."

**John 21:25 **- But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Hope this is helpful. Good luck to you.