Not the same God?

[Portrait]

The OT canon was received and recognized very early on and the Apocrypha was rejected. Athanasius did not recognize the Apocrypha (367AD); he rejected those books from the canon of inspired Scripture. And before that it was rejected by Origen (210AD) and even before that by Melito of Sardis(170AD). And it continued to be rejected by many, if not most, right up until the Reformation.

After listing the twenty-seven books of the NT, Athanasius affirmed the present day Protestant OT canon: ”These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.”

Rather, as had been incorrectly “said already” and continued here. The Apocrypha was never established canon in the church. It’s true some accepted it but by and large most did not. Jerome completely rejected those books as being inspired. As for Luther, he simply followed the early church concerning the Apocrypha – and rejected it. Even Cardinal Cajetan, a leading RCC scholar and an opponent of Luther, rejected the Apocrypha. And in his * Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament* he wrote that Augustine did not accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. Therefore, it was Trent which engaged in its own “new fangled theology”.

Dear kelman,

The books of the O.T. contained in the Catholic canon are those contained in Septuagint translation of the Hebrew bible. This translation was made during the three centuries before the birth of our Saviour. The Jews, even in Palestine, accepted the Septuagint canon and Christ Himself used it in conversing with them. The Jews began to deny its authenticity only about a century after Christ because they could not resist the force of the arguments drawn from it and used against them by the Christians. They therefore said that it was a bad and inferior translation, that it did not agree with the Hebrew text, so they rejected it. Nevertheless, the use which the Jews themselves had made of it for nearly a hundred years rendered their rejection of it too late. There polemical motives are manifestly obvious.

When the Protestant Reformers abandoned the Catholic Church, they adopted the same policy as the Jews had adopted against the early Christians, and tried to cast doubt upon the Catholic versions of Sacred Scripture. They too, therefore, repudiated the Septuagint canon and accepted the current Hebrew copies of the O.T. books. The Hebrew MSS omitted the deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books contained in the Septuagint and the Protestants followed suit, without seriously bothering to ask why the Jews had rejected these books - reasons that were polemical rather than critical.

The inspired writers of the N.T. most frequently qoute from the Septuagint. As a matter of fact, of some 350 quotations, nearly, 300 are taken from the Greek O.T. Indeed, they had to quote from the Septuagint because many for whom they wrote were ignorant of Hebrew, whereas the Greek version was generally known and read. Now if the Septuagint was erroneous and its canon false, then far from quoting from it, the Apostles should have roundly denounced it and admonished the Christian community not to use it, but to use exclusively the Hebrew canon. The Apostles did not do so. Rather they sanctioned the use of the canon accepted by the Catholic Church and rejected by the Protestant Reformers.

Cardinal Cajetan and others who rejected the deuterocanonical books were not speaking officially on behalf of the entire Catholic Church, but were merely expressing their opinions as private individuals. Therefore what they said is really of no consequence. The Catholic is only interested in what his Church officially teaches respecting the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

It’s true, man can convince himself of just about anything. There is no one who can claim his opinions are the “voice of the Holy Spirit” and that includes your church. Still, it is reasonable to hope for the leading of the Holy Spirit, this God promises His children (Rom 8:14).

God tells us to “test the spirits”(1Jn 4:1). How do we do that?..by the only way possible, by the only thing God has proclaimed to be inspired – His written Word. If we’re told to accept a doctrine as truth, it must first align with Scripture and if it does not – it must be rejected – if we are to be obedient to 1Jn 4:1. Said doctrine must always lead us toward the Lord Jesus and not away from Him. It is always God who illuminates His Word, who reveals the majesty and beauty of Christ to His children(Mat 16:16).

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us through the meduim of the Church (ecclesia docens) and always in accordance with doctrines of the Church. God clearly does not contradict Himself; He does not send the Holy Spirit to teach us one thing and the Church to teach another. Thus if any man finds himself in opposition to the teachings of the Church, then he can be quite certain that the Holy Spirit is not source of his ideas or insights. Of one thing we can be sure of and that is that the Holy Spirit could not have possibly inspired all the conflicting interpretations that we find in Protestantism.

The fact is that there is an essential want of unity in Protestantism, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary. Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot be leading men into all truth when there is so much disunity and even emnity among those who are supposed to agree on fundamental teachings. My dear brother, we cannot surely hold that multitudes of conflicting ecclesial communions, even those disowining each other, are all one united body - one in doctrine and one charity, being led by God.

Christ, who knew fully well that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, took precautions precisely to avoid such harmful internal divisions. He declared that there would be absolute unity in both doctrine and government and He has preserved His Church from both the doctrinal and disciplinary dissension that we observe in Protestantism today. In the fourth century there was same Catholic Church as there is today and almost as many cut-off sects; Montanists, Manicheans, Arians, Donatists, Nestorians, Pelagians and Eutychians, all were solemnly telling men that they were part of the one true Church. Sincere and good men were deceived and maintained their divisions to preserve the true doctrine from supposed error. However, these factions did, at length, die, lacking the promise of Christ. Things have not really changed and disunity and chaos is still very evident and you have a whole new host of cut-off groups - Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Pentecostolists etc. - all which claim to preserve the true doctrine of Christ within their dissentient communions. The very fact that these groups emerged late on the ecclesiastical stage ought to arouse our suspicions as to their genuiness and authenticity. How can these man-made substitutes be a part of the one indivisible Catholic Church of Christ which has existed from the very commencement of Christianity?

Protestantism asks us to believe that although the Holy Spirit was given care of the Church, He allowed the entire Church, Pope, Bishops, and all, to drift into error and deception until the Protestant Reformers came along to put everything right and set in order the things that were wanting. If it be said by way of reply, that the Reformation was a genuine movement of God, then we respond by saying, that is jolly strange since so many diverse and conflicting ideas arose out of this movement, but I suppose we are to attribute the unhappy divisions to the human condition! Surely the Holy Spirit knows His own mind and becuase she is subject to the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church knows her own mind also, which is why the unbroken unity of the Catholic Church is manifestly obvious even to the most casual observer of the religious scene.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

It is simply the human condition, God did not give us infallibility and though many won’t accept it, because they need “certainty”, they are in the same boat as everyone else and perhaps even worse. If there were an alternative where we would all just know perfect truth all the time, we would take it. Such a utopia does not exist.

Your church claims to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, does it not? Why is its claim superior to Christians of all other denominations, the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant churches, who come to different conclusions?

This is simply arguing for one speculative doctrine on the basis of another. It has never been “shown” that the RCC gave us the Bible as they claim. Again, it didn’t exist at that time. Did the “universal” church receive and recognize Scripture? As I’ve previously demonstrated the entire canon was already listed by Melito in 120AD, followed by Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, etc., etc., btw, all rejected the present day RCC canon.

The Bible not a sufficient guide? Sorry, but this flies directly in the face of Scripture itself. God very plainly tells us that Scripture is how we come to salvation. We do not need others to explain this or anything else pertaining to salvation and leading a good Christian life. God has plainly written so that all can understand these things. The Gospel itself preceded the church, in fact, the church is a direct result of the Gospel. Scripture is simply the Gospel written down so that effectively we can say that Scripture preceded the church.

Yes, the Gospel message was “orally” preached and before their deaths the Apostles made sure it was written down so that we would always have the truth – according to Peter. With his death getting closer, Peter commends us to the written word – not to the church and certainly not to any apostolic “successor”.

Dear kelman,

Hello again.

Christ established His Church upon a rock solid foundation and declared that the gates of hades, or forces of evil, would not prevail against it (S. Matt. 16: 18). This implies the perpetual retention of the truth taught by Christ, thus precluding its corruption as touching the faith. He commanded her to teach all nations, “teching them to observe all that I have commanded you”; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (St. Matt. 28: 20). His abiding presence in the Church guarantees that she will ever teach a doctrine identical with His own principles. He promised that the Holy Spirit would abide with the Church forever, undoubtedly a pledge of perpetual infallibility, for Christ would first be with the Apostles and then their successors (that is the only way that He could be with them “for ever” cf. S. Jhn. 14: 16). St. Paul clearly manifests this doctrine by his words, “…the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tim. 3: 15). You will observe that St. Paul does not say that Sacred Scripture is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, but rather “the Church of the living God”. Alas, those Christian bodies which, since the time of the Reformation, have put themselves outside of the Church and the Apostolic Succession because of alleged “supersitions” and “accretions to what is pure and primitive”, have extensively declined from the true Catholic faith and this decline continues unremittingly and nothing seems capable of arresting it. As proof of this I would point to my former ecclesial communion, the church of England, and say that it would be unrecognisable to many of the devout 19th. cent. clergy who were devout orthodox men in so many ways (e.g. Bishop Walsham How, Bishop Handley Moule and Deans Alford and Goulburn). They would be aghast at the extent of the inroads of liberalism and doctrinal and moral laxity in their beloved church. Moreover, they would be utterly astonished that there is no check upon false teaching in faith and morals (e.g. prior to the Lambeth Conference in the 1930’s contraception was forbidden to Anglicans, now it is perfectly acceptable). John Wesley would turn in his grave if he could see what a liberal organisation Methodism has become today. Much the same could be said for all of the mainline Protestant denominations - but not for the Catholic Church which has been, and is, a beacon of light and hope amidst the doctrinal indifference of Protestantism.

The ECF’s insist upon the infallibilty of the Church and reason also tells us that the unity of the Church could not be maintained if she could fail in teaching the truth; her very holiness forbids heresy; her catholicity demands expansion without the loss of the self-same teaching; her apostolicity requires perpetual duration of an unchanged Apostolic doctrine. Indeed, if the Catholic Church be not infallible, then there is no Church on earth which is such as our Lord predicted it.

Individuals in all ages have fallen into error in so far as they have departed from the teachings of the Catholic Church established by Christ and, in falling into error, they have fallen out of the Church, even as the Protestant Reformers themselves.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

God gave authority to the churches to teach, of that there is no doubt. However, He did not give an “infallible” ability to teach – we do not find that anywhere. I have accepted the teaching authority of the Apostles – the inspired Scriptures they penned. Why would I accept all sorts of doctrines, dogmas and practices that the Apostles did not pen?

Dear kelman,

God gave authority to the Church, not churches to teach and that authority would be pointless without the charism of infallibility. The one true Church founded by Christ must of necessity be infallible if it is not to err in teaching and interpreting the faith.

The Catholic Church has never added a single teaching of dogmatic value which was not contained in the original teachings of the Apostles. Where doubts have arisen, she has indeed officially defined the correct doctrine for the Church, not giving a new doctrine, but clearly expressing the exact significance of the old doctrine. This is exactly what a teaching Church is for. The early Christians, by believing in the doctrines of Christ, believed these truths also, well implicitly at any rate, though they could quite well have been ignorant of the later terminology used to describe them.

“A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given…The absolute need of a spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest of arguments in favour of the fact of its supply. Surely, either an objective revelation has not been given, or it has been provided with means for impressing its objectiveness on the world. If Christianity be a social religion, as it certainly is, and if it be based on certain ideas acknowledged as divine, or a creed…and if these ideas have various aspects ans make distinct impressions on different minds, and issue in consequence in a multiplicity of developments, true, false, or mixed,…what power will suffice to meet and to do justice to these conflictling conditions but a supreme authority ruling and reconciling individual judgements by divine right and a recognised wisdom?..Philosophy, taste, prejudice, passion, party, caprice will find no common measure, unless there be some supreme power to control the mind and to compel agreement. There can be no combination on the basis of truth without an organ of truth” ( J.H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845, Rev.ed. 1878, Part 1, ch. 2, sect. 2, 12-13, emphasis mine).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

By what test do we decide that it is really the Holy Spirit who is leading or illuminating a man? How do we know that a man just thinks what he wants to think according to his ‘tradition’ and then persuades himself that his opinions are the voice of the Holy Spirit? The fact is that other equally devout and equally bible-believing Christians arrive at other conclusions.

A most trenchant point, Portrait!

How can the Holy Spirit guide believers into contrary doctrines?

Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is “teaching” them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, **how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? **It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, "once saved always saved", and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD? [home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm](http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm)

 

[kelman]

The text does not say that he searched
the scriptures, but only that he was “acquainted with the Sacred
Writings”. It does not inform us of how he aquired his knowledge.

Timothy’s “knowledge” is said to have come from his mother(2Tim 1:5;
3:15) and from Paul(2Tim 1:13). Where do you see that Timothy was
merely “acquainted with the Sacred Writings"? Rather, we see
that he was to: ”continue thou in the things which thou hast
learned and hast been assured of.” We are told how he
“acquired his knowledge” – from his mother and from Paul. It is from the
Scripture that Timothy became saved. It is through Scripture that God
gives us faith:

”And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which
are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in
Christ Jesus.”

Philo, a contemporary of our Lord, says, “They are taught, so
to speak, from their swaddling clothes by their parents, masters and
teachers, in the holy laws, and in the unwritten customs, and to
b!elieve in God, the Father and Creator of the world”. Please do not
misunderstand me, dear friend, I am not saying that it is wrong to
search or examine the scriptures, but it is wrong to do so with the
intent of rejecting the God given authority of those who “sit in Moses
Seat”. This Timothy did not do and neither must we.

At least offer some evidence that God has provided an authoritative
interpretive authority since this is precisely what is in contention.
Simply making assertions obviousy proves nothing other than that’s
what you believe. Throwing in “Moses’ seat” is essentially moot since
this term likely refers to what is primarily magisterial, not doctrinal.

“This is to be understood rather of the legislative seat (or chair),
than of the merely doctrinal: and Christ here asserts the authority
of the magistrate, and persuadeth to obey him in lawful things” Lightfoot

Where does Scripture say that we need something other than itself to lead us to
salvation?..to be “completed”?(2Tim 3).

The Bereans and early Christians first received the true
doctrine from the teaching Church (ecclesia docens) and then confirmed
the veracity of that teaching from the Sacred Scriptures. Nothing
irregular about that, for it is the correct procedure and Catholics
today do the very same thing.

Yes, the Bereans confirmed from Scripture what they were taught by
Paul. However, this is not what Roman Catholics do
today, it is the complete opposite. Had the Bereans seen that Paul’s
Gospel message was not supported by the OT they would have rightly
rejected it. Roman Catholics must accept whatever has been deemed
dogma by the pope or magisterium even if the evidence for said dogma
cannot be supported by Scripture. This of course it contrary, well, obviously
to Scripture but also the early church. To them if it can’t be proved from
Scripture it was to be rejected.

”For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we
ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy
Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices
of argument.” The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril Lecture 4.17

However, the Protestant method is not first to be taught by the
Church and then verify, but to try to make their own religion from the
bible with an untrained mind, based on a private interpretation, an
entirely different matter altogether.

Don’t know who you’re talking about here…certainly not Protestants.
We are indeed taught by our church and continue to study what we have
been taught – according to God’s instructions. My goodness, it’s not
as if we’re out there in a rain forest somewhere alone with our
Bibles!

You’re putting forth a double standard. You’re claiming that your position
is certain, while anything else is uncertain. But your own decision to
become Roman Catholic comes from your own private judgment
which is anything but “infallible”.

This is grave error which leads to a multitude of denominations
and a mulltiplicity of interpretations. In short, the doctrinal chaos
which is Protestantism.

It doesn’t take an expert to interpret the crucial doctrines of the
Bible. The NT was written in the vernacular of the times. It was a
book written in the common everyday language for the common everyday
person. The essential truths of the Bible can be understood by any
literate person.

In fact, it is an insult to the common people, and
to God, to suggest that they can read and understand the daily
newspaper for themselves but need an “infallible” teaching magisterium
in order to understand God’s message for them in the NT.

It’s not as if the RCC is without its own “chaos” with regard to both
Scripture and its own “infallible” documents. If an infallible
teaching magisterium is needed to overcome the conflicting
interpretations of Scripture, why is it that even these “infallibly”
decisive declarations are also subject to conflicting interpretations?

One example, despite “infallible” statements, there is strong
disagreement among Roman Catholics on whether the Bible is really
infallible in all matters or only on matters of salvation.

 

[kelman]

As regards St. John 5: 39, "It will never be settled beyond
dispute whether the verb here is imperative or indicative.

Utimately the tense of the verb is not that important because the same
principle is abundantly taught throughout Scripture. We are to read,
study, meditate on Scripture – and obey it. Still, it is
through Scripture that we come to faith which adds to the evidence
that the verb is indeed an imperative.

At any rate we can see that understanding the bible with an
untrained mind is not quite as simple as Protestants often allege.

No, what we see is that even the “experts” can disagree. God
did not write a Book for the elite as you seem to think. Throughout
Scripture we see the message is for the “people”:

**”…because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”**Mat 11:25

**”Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my
path.”**Psalm 119:105

”I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.” Psalm 119:15-16

Simply because there are some passages which are difficult is no
justification to therefore desire an “infallible” interpretor especially
as you can provide no evidence that God has given us one. Besides,
your church has authoritatively interpreted exceedingly few passages
– less than ten.

There are so many ECFs which make the point that doctrines and
defense against heresies come from Scripture alone, I chose
Chrysostom and Augustine:

“They say that we are to understand the things concerning paradise,
not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture
wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does
not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close
our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the holy Scriptures exactly.” Homily 13 on Genesis

”What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy
Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser
than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except
to expound to you the words of the Teacher.” (De bono viduitatis, 2)

God inspired the original autographs, not the work of various
translators and so if one reads a sense into Scripture which God did
not intend at all, then one no longer has God’s Word.

What everyone has is a fallible interpretation of God’s Word. Remember your church “infallibly” interprets but a few verses.

 

[rinnie]

Utimately the tense of the verb is not that important because the same
principle is abundantly taught throughout Scripture. We are to read,
study, meditate on Scripture – and obey it. Still, it is
through Scripture that we come to faith which adds to the evidence
that the verb is indeed an imperative.

No, what we see is that even the “experts” can disagree. God
did not write a Book for the elite as you seem to think. Throughout
Scripture we see the message is for the “people”:

**”…because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”**Mat 11:25

**”Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my
path.”**Psalm 119:105

”I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.” Psalm 119:15-16

Simply because there are some passages which are difficult is no
justification to therefore desire an “infallible” interpretor especially
as you can provide no evidence that God has given us one. Besides,
your church has authoritatively interpreted exceedingly few passages
– less than ten.

There are so many ECFs which make the point that doctrines and
defense against heresies come from Scripture alone, I chose
Chrysostom and Augustine:

“They say that we are to understand the things concerning paradise,
not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture
wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does
not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close
our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the holy Scriptures exactly.” Homily 13 on Genesis

”What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy
Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser
than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except
to expound to you the words of the Teacher.” (De bono viduitatis, 2)

What everyone

Our Church interprets the the entire SS and ST.

 

[kelman]

Whilst the Apostles themselves are dead, according to the terms of His
assurance, they must in some sense remain in the world until the end
of time

Yes, the Apostles remain with us in some sense and we’re told in what sense it is – in the inspired Scripture they penned and handed-down to us. Peter knew his death was imminent and it was important to him to write down the truth so that we may ever have it with us. In addition, God tells us that not “one jot or one tittle” shall disappear. So, it is in this sense that God assures that not only the Apostles remain with us but also how in another sense the Lord Jesus remains with us.

Now they can remain in the world only through
representatives chosen in the manner which, under divine direction,
they themselves prescribed

Not so. The Apostles remain in the world by virtue of their inspired writing. We don’t find an Apostle bequeathing his apostolic authority to anyone.

They must, therefore, have made provision
that their authority should be passed on to others and transmitted
down the whole line of their successors, so that in every generation
the rulers of the Church could say, "Our authority is the ever living
authority of Christ Himself; our aunthority is the authority of the
Apostles, for we are one with them by lawful and proper succession

You say things like “they must, therefore have made provision”, however, that needs to be demonstrated not just assumed on the basis of personal preference or allegedly unacceptable consequences of not having an infallible church. Did the Apostles appoint elders in each city?..yes. Is that evidence of the elder having the same apostolic authority as an Apostle?..I think even you would agree that the appointed elder did not have the same authority as an Apostle.

In fact, even your own scholars agree as we see in this quote from Francis Sullivan, S.J., in his work “From Apostles to Bishops”:

”Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish. It is unfortunate, I believe, that some presentations of Catholic belief in this matter have given a very different impression…To speak of “an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles” suggests that Christ ordained the apostles as bishops, and that the apostles in turn ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded, so that by the time the apostles died, each Christian church was being led by a bishop successor to an apostle. There are serious problems with such a theory of a link between apostles and bishops.” (Sullivan, 13)

The words of our Lord make it clear that the Apostles are the last
envoys whom God will send to mankind. The authority which He gave
them and their successors He will never give to any others

You’re making a giant leap - the Scriptures do not indicate that apostolic authority is given to any but the Apostles. There is little doubt that apostolic authority was superior to elder authority and so it ever remains. In fact was the nature of the authority of the elders in the church at Ephesus the same as the authority of the apostle Paul? Was Timothy’s and Titus’ authority and that of those they appointed in Ephesus and Crete the same as that of Paul’s?

That the Apostles elected others to assist them in their
labours is plain from the N.T. itself.

Protestants agree that the Apostles were “succeeded”(not in the RCC sense) by elders and these elders were followed by other elders and yet no biblical evidence exists that apostolic authority was ever “handed-down” to successors. In fact, we see in Acts 8:18 that the gifts of the Holy Spirit could be received only at the hands of an Apostle - not from someone upon whom they had “laid hands”. This alone should be sufficient to prove the impossibility of “apostolic succession”.

It is generally held that one important qualification of the Apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus Christ and along with their work, together with the OT prophets, they provided the foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures which we have from them. To share with the Apostles the same faith, to believe their word in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, this is the only meaningful sense of apostolic succession; because it is in this sense that men have fellowship with God in the truth.

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all
cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly
pretend the authority of the apostles…” The Epistles of
Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.6

That they went further and made definite provision
for their succession for all time, can, my dear brother, be proved by
many authorities, for example, St. Clement, who died around 100 AD,
says, “Christ was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ. They appointed
bishops and deacons…and they made order that when they (the bishops
& deacons) died, other men of tried virtue should succeed in their
ministry”(Ist Epistle of Clement, 42, 44).

Yes, as noted they appointed those who would lead the church in their absence, however, we don’t read the Apostles “handed down” their apostolic authority to anyone. And 1st Clement doesn’t say that they did, in fact, he simply reiterates Paul’s instructions to appoint elders and deacons in each city.

** “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city,
as I had appointed thee:”** Titus 1:5

”So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.” 1Clem 42:4

 

[kelman]

St. Irenaeus, writing
towards the end of the second century, speaks of “the bishops and
their successors down to our time who have been appointed by the
Apostles” (Against Heresies, 3,3).

Yes, Irenaeus often writes on authority, the Apostles, the church, etc., however, he never appeals to papal authority, nor does he ever even mention it. He gives a practical explanation for the significance of the apostolic churches and their bishops. He says nothing about Mat 16, an office established by Jesus, infallibility, etc. Rather, Irenaeus is (correctly) appealing to these churches’ (and their bishops’) historical proximity to the Apostles.

Peter was an Apostle and Apostles did not function as bishops over local churches. They ordained presbyters who became overseers, and it was these men who were, in turn, responsible to the Apostles. To speak of anyone being a bishop over the church as early as the first century is anachronistic, for the episcopate was a later development.

The promise of the Primacy to St. Peter is directly stated in the
words: “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”, that is to
say, the keys of the Church. The ‘keys’ were regarded by the Jews, as
they are regarded by us, as a symbol of ownership and supreme
authority. He who holds the keys is the master of the house. St.
Peter and his successor, therefore, shall be master and ruler of the
Church.

Unfortunately, none of the above has any evidence from either Scripture or the early church. I assume you mean to connect Isa 22 to what you believe was given to Peter alone? However, simply assuming the relevance of the Isa 22 passage does not, in fact, prove the assertion. There is no patristic defense of the use of Isa 22:20-22 in reference to finding succession in the papacy in Mat 16. Nowhere is Peter made the “prime minister” or as you put it “master of the house”. A reading of the NT proves that the other Apostles did not credit Peter with more authority than that which they held. In fact, Paul clearly states that he had as much authority as did the Twelve. There is no biblical evidence that anyone in the NT thought Peter was “master of the house”.

Not all of the Apostles were given the keys, so St. Peter had
a supremacy and authority that the others simply did not have.

Certainly we see that the authority of the “keys” was given to all the Apostles. The keys are connected to the authority to “bind and loose” which were, according to Scripture, given to all the Apostles. And nowhere does Scripture even intimate that this authority was given primarily to Peter and subordinately to the other Twelve. It is evident that this is the judgment of the early church.

” The vast majority of the Fathers do not recognize the personal
prerogatives of Peter as being transferred in a personal way to the
bishop of Rome, thereby making him the head of the Church.” (Johann
Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston:
Roberts, 1869), p. 74.

There’s nothing in Mat 16 which speaks of successors to Peter and the passing on of his personal prerogatives to them. The keys, rather than signifying the establishment of the institution of the papacy and supreme authority to rule the church and the world, are representative of the authority to exercise discipline in the church and to proclaim the Gospel, declaring the free forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Augustine wrote that Peter was a figure of the church, that he represented the church, however, he also wrote that all were given the keys because all were equal in authority…the “church” was given the keys. Augustine certainly had many “exalted” things to say about Peter yet in no way did he transfer this to Roman bishops. Augustine, and other patristic writers, believed the rock of Mat 16 was Peter’s faith and that the church was built upon Christ - not Peter:

”Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure,
that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock
(petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (petra) is the
original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the
rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian,
but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter;
and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which
thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son
of the Living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon
Myself, not Myself upon Thee.”

• “But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church
  is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or
  each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against
  Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that
  they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does
  not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail
  against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them?
  And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the
  keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and
  will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I
  will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to
  others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things
  which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to
  them?* (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
  1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

 

[kelman]

A similar comment could be made respecting the
words of St. Paul that the Church is bulit “upon the foundations of
the Apostles” (Eph. 2: 20). It is bulit upon them as forming a united
body under the Primacy of St. Peter.

You are simply reading your preferences into passages. Nowhere do we find the Bible indicating that a “body” was formed under the Primacy of St. Peter. Eph 2 says the church is built upon the “apostles and prophets why leave that out? It is teaching that the Apostles and prophets can be called the foundations in that they ministerially laid down who God calls the only foundation - the Lord Jesus Christ. We see this demonstrated in other passages. Does Paul say he is the foundation?.. that he is a part of that foundation?.. or that he “comprises” that foundation?..no, he does not. Rather, he says that he “laid the foundation” which is Jesus Christ – there is no other foundation:

1Cor 3:10 ** According to the grace of God which is given unto me,
as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and
another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth
thereupon.**

1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ.

We can prove the infallibility of the Church from the absurdity of the
contrary, for if it be allowed that His Church can err in exacting the
assent of faith for her doctrine, then it surely follows that God has
bound men on pain of eternal damnation to believe what is false, for
Christ said, “He who does not believe will be condemned”.

Haven’t you’ve just spent a lot of time telling us that “belief” is not necessary? In any event, the Apostles founded the churches by preaching the Gospel, writing inspired epistles to them with further instructions and leaving the care of the churches in the hands of the proper God-given governmental leadership - a plurality of elders. We don’t find the slightest biblical or even historical evidence for an “infallible” pope.

Your private judgment is not “proof” of anything other than what you happen to believe. Why do you insist that God should govern according to what you think is right? Would you have governed the world the way God demonstates that He has? Would you have governed by use of prophets and judges?..would you have divided the Kingdom of Israel? Would you have killed all the first born in Egypt?..would you have killed Achan’s entire family? No, I’m afraid that philosophical presuppositions don’t determine church infallibility nor do unjustified assumptions about how we think God should govern the world.

Your other point “He who does not believe will be condemned” what does Scripture tell us to believe?..an authoritative jurisdictional “infallible” pontiff? Of course not… we are commanded to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why do you suppose God inspired the penman of Scripture? …because that’s the living legacy of apostolic teaching. A fact which Peter made clear in his inspired writings. As I mentioned before, he knew he was about to die. Did he select an apostolic “successor”…so that we would always have the truth?..no, he did not. He did, however, say he wrote it down so that we’ll always have the truth with us.

It would also follow that there can be no certainty whether
any particular
doctrine is the true doctrine.

God tells us He has given us infallible revelation and yet RCC’s doctrines would have Him failing miserably. To claim, as it does, that God’s infallible unveiling in the Bible needs further “infallible” unveiling is to say that it was not unveiled properly to begin with. In any event, Scripture is clear throughout that it can and is, in fact, understood without an “infallible” human authority. Nothing too esoteric about “ repent and believe”.

To believe that Christ established a
Church of this sort is, to say the very least, most unsatisfactory,
but Protestantism asks men to believe that in matters appertaining to
their eternal welfare, there can be no certainty in this world! We
must accept God’ Word, but as to the correct interpretation of that
Word, there really can be no certitude.

Who has ever claimed that beliefs pertaining to eternal life are not certain?..surely not me or any Protestant I’m aware of. Are some things not always clear?..obviously. However, God makes is perfectly clear that the only way to salvation is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Besides, as to “certainty” where is the RCC’s certainty about the Scriptures?..it has “officially” interpreted but a handful and its theologian argue over the extent of Scripture’s inspiration among other things. We see that what one “infallible” council declares another rejects so where’s the certainty in conflicting “infallible” councils?

We can also prove the infallibility of the Church from the unity of
faith. His Church must at all times teach and believe the same body
of divine truths.

Well, we know that that is simply not the case. From “no salvation outside of the RCC – including pagans and Jews” to rejecting idols and then condoning them. The patristic writings demonstrate that there existed a variety of thought and little unity on any number of issues. Rome thought they had a bishop who was superior to other bishops – the rest of Christianity didn’t agree then and still doesn’t.

 

[kelman]

Thus it is quite inconceivable that Christ did not empower His
Church to declare with
an infallible voice whether a doctrine has been revealed or not, and
not to expel from her fold and threaten with damnation all who reject
her decision.

Why is it that these “infallibly” decisive declarations are also subject to conflicting interpretations? There are many hotly disputed differences among Roman Catholic scholars. Just another indication of the indecisive nature of supposedly infallible pronouncements. Historically?..no evidence for “infallibility” at least none that I’ve seen which aren’t fraudulent. Besides, Scripture is clear – the faith has been delivered “once for all”. Christ founded His visible Church, but he gave the Scriptures as the single voice speaking to the church. He did not promise the church a single voice speaking to itself.

You state that “God has given us the teaching ministry of the church”,
but of which ‘church’ do you speak Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist,
Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal or Anglican, to name but just a
few?

The Adventists are hardly a Reformation church, however, the other churches you mentioned, including the RCC and the EO, hold the same common creedal and doctrinal heritage. All believe the major tenets of Christianity so apparently God’s teaching ministry is doing its job.

To whom do we turn for an authoritative and unerring “teaching
ministry”? That there is such a teaching ministry in the world today,
I do not stop to deny, I only ask where you think it is to be found,
my dear brother?

You have in your mind that “infallibility” is a necessity, while it might be nice – it does not exist. At least, there is no biblical or historical evidence that it does. Very fallible private judgment is used to make a decision that an entity is “infallible”. So, the decision is only as “sure” as is the private judgment.

As for me? I wholeheartedly accept and turn to the teaching of Scripture. It teaches as clearly as can be taught that man can understand the written Word especially as it relates to salvation and the Christian life. Nowhere does God speak of anything else as being inspired or inerrant. Nowhere are we told to go to any infallible authority other than Scripture to learn about God for it is the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice. Nowhere does the Bible teach an infallible pope or the myriad of other practices and dogmas. In light of all this, what to do?.. reject what God has not given and turn to what He has.

All of the churches of the Reformation, for example,
emerged late on the eccesiastical scene with their ‘rediscovered
truths’. Why should anyone of them be believed and how am I to know
that they teach the truth without error?

If anyone wishes to know “true truth” they do as the Bereans. The people in Berea searched the Scriptures for themselves to verify the message they heard. We always compare what someone says with what the Bible says. They were “examining the Scriptures daily.” Examining (anakrino) “means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes.”

What the Reformation church fathers “rediscovered” was apostolic teaching much of which had been…let’s just say “lost”. They went back to biblical roots that salvation was through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone not by man’s works. They “rediscovered” that man is justified by grace through faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus and that He alone is the sole efficient cause of salvation. And that Scripture alone speaks authoritatively, and it speaks to all believers, independently of church leaders and councils or other human interpreters.

 

[PRmerger]

If anyone wishes to know “true truth” they do as the Bereans. The people in Berea searched the Scriptures for themselves to verify the message they heard.

Firstly, kelman, if you are really arguing that we “do as the Bereans” did, then you are proposing is that we examine only the Old Testament to verify the Christian message.

For that is what the Bereans did, no? (There was no NT yet–the early Christians had not yet discerned for you what was Scripture and what was not.)

I doubt that this is what you are proposing. And thus to give us the example of the Bereans “examining the Scriptures” is a curious one to support your argument.

Secondly, it is odd that you use the Bereans as an example of SS, for if we examine the text in its fuller context, we see that the Bereans received the word ORALLY from Paul.

And is that not what Sacred Tradition is?

This is exactly the paradigm that the Catholic Church proclaims: through the paradosis we have come to know the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Sacred Scriptures confirm and affirm that which was whole and entire, given once for all, to the Church.

 

[kelman]

The books of the O.T. contained in the Catholic canon are those contained in Septuagint translation of the Hebrew bible. This translation was made during the three centuries before the birth of our Saviour.

Existing evidence supports that the earlier translations did not contain the Apocrypha. Did the “Christian” copies of the 4th century include the Apocrypha…yes. However, there’s little reason to suppose that the copies from some six hundred years earlier contained the Apocrypha. Athanasius (296-373), bishop of Alexandria where the Septuagint was produced, did not include the Apocryha in his list of OT books. Additionally, Cyril of Jerusalem, writing in the fourth century, catalogued the OT books which were canonical and which, he said, were translated by the Septuagint translators, and he also did not include the writings of the Apocrypha. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV.33–36

The Jews, even in Palestine, accepted the Septuagint canon and Christ Himself used it in conversing with them.

There’s no evidence that the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. Melito of Sardis said he went to Palestine to determine the extent of the Hebrew OT. and he gives the names of the books and their number as twenty-two—a reaffirmation of the number given by Josephus. Origen also names twenty-two books in his list of the Hebrew canon. Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen and Hilary of Poitiers all agree with Josephus and Origen, and omit the writings of the Apocrypha.

The Lord never quoted from it and He Himself officially gave us the extent of the Hebrew canon when He cited ”the law, the prophets and the psalms”.

The Jews began to deny its authenticity only about a century after Christ because they could not resist the force of the arguments drawn from it and used against them by the Christians. They therefore said that it was a bad and inferior translation, that it did not agree with the Hebrew text, so they rejected it. Nevertheless, the use which the Jews themselves had made of it for nearly a hundred years rendered their rejection of it too late. There polemical motives are manifestly obvious.

I see false assumptions and rather blatant RCC “manifestly obvious” motives at work.

When the Protestant Reformers abandoned the Catholic Church, they adopted the same policy as the Jews had adopted against the early Christians, and tried to cast doubt upon the Catholic versions of Sacred Scripture.

Actually the Reformers were kicked out – were they not? I suppose Jerome wanted to cast doubt?..did Athanasius want to “cast doubt”? …was Hilary “casting doubt” also?..was Origen?..Epiphanius , Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Great, John of Damascus, Rufinus, etc., etc.?

These men, and many others, did more than “cast doubt” they dogmatically stated that the Apocrypha was not inspired Scripture and they didn’t do so with nefarious intent. No doubt the Holy Spirit worked in their hearts to confirm His truth. There is sufficient evidence that the Jews never included the Apocrypha amongst inspired Scripture. We’re told in the Bible that God committed His very oracles to the Jews – how do we dare to say otherwise?

They too, therefore, repudiated the Septuagint canon and accepted the current Hebrew copies of the O.T. books. The Hebrew MSS omitted the deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books contained in the Septuagint and the Protestants followed suit, without seriously bothering to ask why the Jews had rejected these books - reasons that were polemical rather than critical.

Unfortunately, the evidence (both bibical and historical) doesn’t square with your understanding. Did later (4th century) copies contain the Apocrypha?..yes, but they were produced by Christians many centuries later – not by Jews. For example, Athanasius (296-373AD) who was the bishop of Alexandria ( the city where the Septuagint was produced) did not include the Apocrypha in his list of books that the churches received as inspired. Cyril of Jerusalem, also in the 4th century, catalogued the OT canon of inspired books which he said were translated by the Septuagint translators. He also did not include the Apocrypha. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV.33–36) So, the evidence is pretty convincing that the Septuagint did not contain the Apocrypha.

The inspired writers of the N.T. most frequently qoute from the Septuagint. As a matter of fact, of some 350 quotations, nearly, 300 are taken from the Greek O.T.

However many times the Septuagint might have been quoted – one thing is certain – there’s not one quote from the Apocrypha books even though the OT was abundantly quoted. So obviously, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t consider those books OT Scripture.

Cardinal Cajetan and others who rejected the deuterocanonical books were not speaking officially on behalf of the entire Catholic Church, but were merely expressing their opinions as private individuals. Therefore what they said is really of no consequence. The Catholic is only interested in what his Church officially teaches respecting the canon of Sacred Scripture.

Yes, it is always of “no consequence” when extraordinary numbers of church fathers believe and write that which contradicts modern Roman Catholic doctrines – it’s just “their opinion”. We both know why the RCC embraced the Apocrypha – because it’s possible to interpret certain apocryphal texts as support for some of its doctrines…purgatory for one. Rather, I would hope that the Catholic would be interested in biblical and historical accuracy.

 

[kelman]

What everyone has is a fallible interpretation of God’s Word. Remember your church “infallibly” interprets but a few verses.

No, actually it doesn’t. There are relatively few verses it has “officially” interpreted – maybe seven but not as many as ten…don’t think anybody even knows for sure.

According to both Trent and Vatican 1 all interpretations must be made by the church and the “unanimous consent of the fathers”. I find this odd and not a little humorous because the ECFs often held different interpretations of various verses so unanimity would be hard to come by even if we knew who they were.

Precisely who are the “fathers” that must agree?..are there ten of them?..twenty….ninety? No one knows who they are because Rome has never published a list of these “unanimously agreed” fathers. They must agree but we don’t know who they are – how then can this premise be coherently applied?

 

[Josh316]

@ Kelman: If scripture alone is the authority, then how do I know if using contraception is or is not ok in the eyes of God?

 

[kelman]

(Originally by kelman)
If anyone wishes to know “true truth” they do as the Bereans. The people in Berea searched the Scriptures for themselves to verify the message they heard.

That’s somewhat irrelevant – unless you’re proposing that the NT isn’t inspired Scripture?

Secondly, it is odd that you use the Bereans as an example of SS, for if we examine the text in its fuller context, we see that the Bereans received the word ORALLY from Paul.

If you review the posts, you would see that I did not use the Berean example to support sola Scriptura.

And is that not what Sacred Tradition is?

Is what “Sacred Tradition”? What Paul preached he later wrote down as inspired Scripture otherwise we wouldn’t even know about it. That has nothing to do with tradition.

This is exactly the paradigm that the Catholic Church proclaims: through the paradosis we have come to know the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Sacred Scriptures confirm and affirm that which was whole and entire, given once for all, to the Church.

If by “paradosis” you mean a combo of Scripture and tradition, we know that much “tradition” is neither confirmed or affirmed in Scripture nor can it be reasonably derived from it.

 

[Josh316]

Just throwing this out there.

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Pseudo-Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Isa. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).

Clement

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!” (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus

“Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]” (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [ca. A.D. 190]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Irenaeus

“Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36- 5:9]” (ibid. 5:35:1 [ca. A.D. 190]; Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Hippolytus

“What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah” (Commentary on Daniel 6 [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelamn

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Do trust all is well and that you had a pleasant weekend. Unfortunately, I am suffering the miseries of chest cold at present so am feeling a little under the weather. Thankyou for your latest dispatches, which I will endeavour to respond to during the course of this week.

In the Revised Standard Version the II Timothy passage (3: 15), does read, “…from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”. It is faith in Christ and His Church which will ultimately save a man eternally, not faith in a collection of books. The bible is a signpost pointing us in the right direction as regards the salvation of our souls and it also has the capacity to “instruct” us in the way of godliness and living a devout otherworldly life.

As you say, dear bother, young Timothy would have first received oral instruction from his mothers knee and then, later, St. Paul. As a Jew he would have been “acquainted with the Sacred Writings” from his very earliest years, for it was a requirement of the Rabbis that a child should begin to learn the Law by rote when five years old.

As devout Jew, Timothy would simply not have challenged the interpretative authority of the proper and duly appointed exponents of the O.T. Scriptures. The Rabbis always sat to teach; hence the metaphorical expression, “Moses’ seat”, which is still current today, speaks of a duly appointed exponent of a subject as occupying a professional ‘chair’. Our Lord acknowledged the claims of the scribes to be the exponents of the Law and insists that they are to be respected, even if the conduct of some of them is inconsistent with their teaching (S. Matt. 23: 2,3). Thus the term is actually primarily doctrinal in its meaning, not magisterial.

You state that Protestants are taught by their church, but I am bound to ask, which church? Which of the Protestant ecclesial communions do I turn for an authoritative interpretation of Sacred Scripture? This would not have been an issue for Timothy, since he would have pointed us to the duly appointed exponents of the Law who alone must be listened to and respected. Our Lord would also have done the same, as we know He indeed did.

As there were duly appointed exponents of religion in the O.T. economy so there is in the Gospel Age. The interpretative authority now has passed to the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” founded upon St. Peter and transmitted to his lawful successors. Thus just as there was only one O.T. Church with its duly appointed exponents, so there is only one N.T. Church with its legitimate exponents. The Protestant paradigm is of alien growth from the time of the Reformation and, with its multitude of denominations, bears no resemblance to either Jewish or Catholic model of one true Church with its lawful exponents of Sacred Scripture.

The fact is that in the early Church there was dispute as to the correct interpretation of “crucial doctrines”, which is why the Church had to decide upon the correct meaning. There were various groups who said that there interpretation was the correct one and everyone else was wrong, thus these crucial doctrines are not as simple as some men think.

The Gospel in not simplicity itelf in the way that Protestants intend, for according to the “common people” there must be thousands of conflicting plans of the “way of salvation” and all supposedly revealed by the one Christ! This is the result of sola scriptura and an arrogant refusal to aknowledge that in the bible there are certain things “hard to be understood” and hence the need and necessity for an interpretative authority, as there was in the O.T. economy and is there is now in the Catholic Church.

Christ did indeed promise the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, but, as you yourself acknowldeged, that promise was given to the Apostles only - and we Catholics would say to their successors also. However, our Lord did not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then all who read Scripture sincerely and devoutly should come to the same conclusion. Alas, they do not. In actual fact the frightful chaos that we witness in Protestantism today as to the meaning of the bible is proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this unsatisfactory way of leading men into all truth. True, the individual is guided by the Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but as touching the knowledge of revealed truth he is guided by the Catholic Church, just as the Jews were guided by the one Church in the O.T. period and its duly appointed exponents.

You say that the Catholic Church is not without its chaos with regards to Scripture and its official documents. Can you kindly cite some examples of this chaos please.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Along with yourself the Catholic Church does encourage the faithful to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Scriptures as this will certainly aid them in their pursuit of holiness. However, this is an entirely different matter from interpreting those Scriptures contrary to the teaching of the Church. The oral teaching of the Church we receive first from our parents and the Church, then, secondly, we verify the veracity of that teaching from the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. When we do this we discover that what we have be taught is consonant with both and so we eagerly embrace it as the truth. This was precisely what the Bereans did and it is precisely what we Catholics do also.

Taken either way, indicative or imperative mood, S. Jhn. 5: 39, 40 shows us that men may be very dilligent in searching the Scriptures, reading them critically, carefully counting the verses, words, letters, as the Jews of old did, and yet miss the chief treasure contained in them, namely the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Catholic Church.

The very fact that even professional theologians and exegetes disagree as to the meaning of Scripture, evinces most clearly that the bible is anything but perspicuous and simplicity itself. Moreover, the disagreement among the “experts” also demonstrates the need and necessity for an authoritative infallible oracle to unerringly teach with respect to faith and practice. It is only the Catholic Church which has and continues to provide this and therefore gives men certitude they need regarding the most fundamental matter of all, the eternal welfare of their immortal soul. Surely, if an infallible oracle is ever required, then it is the all-important issue of man’s eternal salvation and how to acheive it.

A careful study of the bible actually points to the Church as being the final arbiter of truth in all spiritual matters (cf. I Tim. 3: 15; S. Matt. 16: 18-19; 18: 18; S. Lk. 10: 16). Surely this makes a great deal of sense, especially on a practical level, since only an entity with the ability to observe and correctly interpret information can act as an authority. Whilst Sacred Scripture indisputably contains God-breathed revelation, it cannot act as a final authority since it is dependent on thinking personalities to observe what it says and, more crucially, interpret what it means.

The theory of sola scriptura has been the occasion of untold damage to Christendom since the Reformation. If it be asked what damage?, then I would say by way of reply, the obvious evidence of the damage is Protestantism itself. What is it but a huge mass of conflicting, bickering denominations, causing, by its very nature of ‘protest’ and defiance, an endless proliferation of chaos and controversy. Even my former ecclesial communion, the church of England, speaks in the Book of Common Prayer of the “unhappy divisions” within Protestantism, and quite rightly so, for they are indeed “unhappy”, for Christ did not envisage such a sad state of affairs within Christendom.

Kelman, my dear brother, I would freely admit that there are problems within the contemporary Catholic Church. In every age the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful and heretical members. At the present time the Church is combating the destructive forces of liberalism and an effete Catholicism that seems perfectly happy to walk hand in hand with the world, refusing the call to sanctity and separation from the world. This is most deplorable and unacceptable. Nevertheless, one must realize that aberrations among its members does not negate the Catholic Church’s authenticity as Christ’s true Church. One must distinguish between what is done in the name of Catholicism from what is officially taught by the magisterium. Rebellious and worldly members should not really surprise us. Sacred Scripture warns that many wthin the Church will sin and become contaminated by the godless culture within their midst, although maintaining the appearance of spirituality. As our Lord Himself said, the wheat will grow up with the tares until the Second Advent.

Notwithstanding this rather depressing picture, even many Protestants are amazed that despite these grave challenges, the Catholic Church has an almost uncanny ability to weather the storms of controvesy, heresy, worldliness and schism. There have been countless predictions of Rome’s imminent demise, but, bless God, it still stands. When I studied Church history prior to my conversion to the Church, I saw that all the dioceses refered to in the N.T., with the exception of Jerusalem, only the Church at Rome still exists. Besides the major sees of Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Colossae, and the region of Galatia, the N.T. reminds us of less prominent churches which today are extinct (cf. Rev. 2 and 3). Thus if the longevity and universality of the Catholic Church is not indicative of its divine origin and authority, then, quite honestly, I do not know what is.

There is simply no natural explanation for the fact that the Catholic Church still exists after all these centuries - but there is a supernatural explanation. Christ promised he would lead His Church (not individuals) into all truth and would protect it from all evil forces aimed at its destruction, without or within, including the very gates of Hades. Therefore, in view of our Lord’s own clear promises of the doctrinal integrity and temporal perpetuity of the Church (cf. S. Matt. 7: 24-25; 16: 18-19; 18: 18; 28: 20; S. Lk. 10: 16; S. Jhn. 14: 16-18; 14: 26; 16: 13), the Protestant claim that for fifteen hundred years the Church was essentially corrupt and did not know or teach the correct way of salvation, is both absurd and unbiblical.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax