since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[benhur]

The above is a nonsequitur, ben.

Point that needs to be addressed: if I only submit when I agree, then the one to whom I am submitting really is me.

So it is not false piety to submit to something you don’t believe in ?

 

[clem456]

So it is not false piety to submit to something you don’t believe in ?

Not necessarily.

If by “belief” you mean faith, then we go beyond merely intellectual understanding.
There are things in scripture and in the Tradition that I have trouble accepting or understanding.
The Resurrection? How crazy is that?
Authority is another one.

I submit to the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel despite my weak understanding.

Imagine the apostles hearing the bread of life discourse. Do we imagine they had faith because they understood transubstantiation?
Hardly. They heard the powers-that-be grumble about him, They themselves grumbled about him. Jesus even recognized their unbelief:

“Does this cause you to stumble?
…
“But there are some of you who do not believe.”
…
many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
…
“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Submission to Christ’s person brings them to believe, not intellectual prowess of some kind. The practice of piety can surely aid our faith.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

*“Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit.” *
Bp. St. Papias of Hieropolis, Sayings of the Lord (A.D. 115-140)

That permanent voice is captured in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

" [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority…"
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)

 

[PRmerger]

So it is not false piety to submit to something you don’t believe in ?

Think of it this way, ben.

From the late, great Cardinal Newman: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

Like you’re a college student in a Calc 3 class. You know the professor has the right answer. You just can’t get it. So it’s your job to wrestle with the problem…until you come to the same answer as the professor.

 

[PRmerger]

Excellent!!! :extrahappy:

So then you do believe that men have been given the charism of infallibility.

At least as it applies to the canon, yes?

I would like you to remember this each and every time you quote from the NT–you are giving your submission to some men, some men who discerned for you and me,* infallibly*, that this quote is actually theopneustos.

See what happens when you hang around Catholics, here on the CAFs?

ben? Could you answer if you believe, indeed, that men can be infallible?

To wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John all wrote infallibly, yes?

And the Church, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT, was infallible in discerning, after including some and excluding others, that there are 27 books in the NT?

Yes?

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit men were prevented from erring? Yes?

 

[benhur]

Not necessarily.

If by “belief” you mean faith, then we go beyond merely intellectual understanding.
There are things in scripture and in the Tradition that I have trouble accepting or understanding.
The Resurrection? How crazy is that?
Authority is another one.

I submit to the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel despite my weak understanding.

Imagine the apostles hearing the bread of life discourse. Do we imagine they had faith because they understood transubstantiation?
Hardly. They heard the powers-that-be grumble about him, They themselves grumbled about him. Jesus even recognized their unbelief:

The point was that the apostles did believe the essential, that Christ is the Messiah, follow and listen to Him, eat His words. Their faith was tested and proven, unlike the others who did not believe from the beginning.

The whole point on the flip side was that if you do not believe (Christ as Messiah, one to be crucified,resurrect and ascend), even disagree, DO NOT FOLLOW FALSELY.

 

[clem456]

Think of it this way, ben.

From the late, great Cardinal Newman: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

Like you’re a college student in a Calc 3 class. You know the professor has the right answer. You just can’t get it. So it’s your job to wrestle with the problem…until you come to the same answer as the professor.

This requires dealing with the core issues here, which is the recognition and acceptance of real and visible authority.

We accept the professors authority, because we can see his credentials. We know where he graduated from, how long he’s taught, the books he’s written.

Christians are asked to accept authority from people who claim a guy breathed on and laid hands on some other guys 2000 years ago, and that touching somehow is passed down through time and space.
We are also asked to believe that that guy cheated death and is still active with his community.

It’s preposterous.
The professor will fail us if we don’t recognize his authority.
Christ can do…
what?

 

[zz912]

As I previously mentioned, the NT writings were written by the apostles or their close contemporaries (like Mark & Luke).

 

[benhur]

Think of it this way, ben.

From the late, great Cardinal Newman: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

Like you’re a college student in a Calc 3 class. You know the professor has the right answer. You just can’t get it. So it’s your job to wrestle with the problem…until you come to the same answer as the professor.

Understand , but your adage is more about disagreeing, not not understanding, two different things.

 

[zz912]

Once again, you are confusing the godly criteria that establish what is, and what is not, Inspired Scripture, with sola scriptura that doesn’t have anything to do with establishing the canon of Scripture. Catholics here really have a hard time discerning between the two on this thread. The latter has nothing to do with the former. It’s a strawman.

Sooner or later (hopefully) you’ll begin to understand the difference between sola scriptura & the godly criteria that establishes Inspired Scripture, and the two don’t have anything do with each other, and that your arguments are strawman.

Could you list out this godly criteria?

 

[benhur]

ben? Could you answer if you believe, indeed, that men can be infallible?

To wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John all wrote infallibly, yes?

And the Church, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT, was infallible in discerning, after including some and excluding others, that there are 27 books in the NT?

Yes?

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit men were prevented from erring? Yes?

Not sure exact same HS mode, that of inspiring Matthew or Mark as they “wrote”, and say for a bishop from Antioch 300 years later voting in favor of canonization of it.

Another words, would you say it required same level of inspiration for Paul to write to Timothy, or even the Galatians and for Timothy and the Galatia Church to receive such letters as “inspired”.

I believe the HS is behind the writing, the receiving, the preserving, the translating and even distribution of and most importantly, the understanding of His written Word.

Just that theologians dissect that with differing terminologies dealing with inerrancy etc. I think.

 

[benhur]

Revelation may have been written before the Gospel of John. The vision on the island happened in the 70’s AD if I remember correctly. Since this is a possibility, you cannot unequivocably use this as an indication that the canon of Scripture is closed.

Never heard this. I thought Revelations was written after the Gospel was written

 

[benhur]

It’s not a problem for Catholics, since we have the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, which is God-breathed, who testifies to the canon of Scripture, and who has authority to declare the canon of Scripture.

A bit like because some say oral/tradition was first, it kind of disproves or weakens SS…

So to I would say because certain scripture was accepted as "HolyWrit " as it was received, way before any formal assemblage of Catholic heirarchy to determine the matter.

Another words , the Corinthians did not wait for the bishop of Rome or the patriarch of Antioch ,or for a “council” to say , “The letter is OK, it is theopneustos”

And so the Galatians, Ephesians,Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon ?

 

[Tomoko]

A bit like because some say oral/tradition was first, it kind of disproves or weakens SS…

So to I would say because certain scripture was accepted as "HolyWrit " as it was received, way before any formal assemblage of Catholic heirarchy to determine the matter.

Another words , the Corinthians did not wait for the bishop of Rome or the patriarch of Antioch ,or for a “council” to say , “The letter is OK, it is theopneustos”

And so the Galatians, Ephesians,Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon ?

Hi Ben

How do you know that? They were simply letters received from an authority that were read out (some in all the churches, although we only preserved one). They later passed into Scripture through the discernment of the Church. We receive many pastoral letters from our bishops every year, but we don’t assume them to be Holy Writ. Why would the Corinthians have?

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You said:

Poor application. Faustus plainly said he did not believe in the gospels as written or orally told, especially Matthew. He did not believe in the Incarnation etc .

I have no problem with your assertion concerning Faustus benhur.

But St. Augustine is explaining a PRINCIPLE here to Faustus.

**St. Augustine is NOT teaching to Faustus what Faustus does or doesn’t believe **(in this portion of his admonition).

**
St. Augustine would explain this standard to Faustus to emphasize the principle of authority. Not to encapsulate Faustus’ own beliefs. **

St. Augustine also knows other people will transcribe and read this (that’s how this ancient stuff gets passed on many times), and St. Augustine knows Faustus may come to believe some truths in the future.

QUOTE:
ST. AUGUSTINE "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” St. Augustine. Sermons [inter A.D. 391-430]

NOT St. Augustine "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like Fuastus . . . well . . . well, I am not going to tell you Faustus . . . because I am writing this to you who don’t believe in the Gospels anyway.

ST. AUGUSTINE **"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” **

 

[Abu]

benhur #430
I would say because certain scripture was accepted as "HolyWrit " as it was received, way before any formal assemblage of Catholic heirarchy to determine the matter.

Another words , the Corinthians did not wait for the bishop of Rome or the patriarch of Antioch ,or for a “council” to say , “The letter is OK, it is theopneustos”

And so the Galatians, Ephesians,Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon ?

The Sacred Scriptures were not available for reading generally for well over a thousand years because they had to be laboriously copied by hand as there were no printing presses.

Thus, the Apostles, Paul and the following Catholic evangelists had to preach the Word of God which they did faithfully, just as Catholics supplied the first printed copies of Holy Writ. The “Bible” was given to the world by the Catholic Church. The New Testament was written by Catholics; the Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

As Christ gave His first Supreme Vicar, St Peter, His authority to bind and loose, the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and on whom, as the rock, He built His Church, only She has the authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures. It is the individual private interpretation of many thousands which has spawned so many thusands of sects using Bibles, all differing in great and small ways in their own ideas.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. I placed a post concerning St. Augustine here.

QUOTE:
ST. AUGUSTINE "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” St. Augustine. Sermons [inter A.D. 391-430]

You replied. . . .

Poor application. Faustus plainly said he did not believe in the gospels as written or orally told, especially Matthew. He did not believe in the Incarnation etc .

I have no problem with your assertion concerning “Faustus” benhur (I differ on St. Augustine though).

The problem is, the quote I used, doesn’t concern Faustus.

The quote I used is from collected writings of St. Augustine usually titled “Sermons”, not St. Augustine’s letter to the Manicheans and Faustus which you cited.

(This illustrates yet another reason why we are not Bible Lone Rangers–we all get it very wrong sometimes. See the Lone Ranger HERE)

---

But let’s look at the quote (pretending this WAS to Faustus) with common sense.

Let’s pretend St. Augustine WAS talking to Faustus when he said:

ST. AUGUSTINE **"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” **

St. Augustine would be explaining a PRINCIPLE here to Faustus.

**
St. Augustine would explain this standard to Faustus to emphasize the principle of authority. Not to encapsulate Faustus’ own beliefs.**

But as it stands, St. Augustine is talking to all of us in a sense when he says . . . .

QUOTE:
ST. AUGUSTINE "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” St. Augustine. Sermons [inter A.D. 391-430]

St. Augustine is teaching about the PRINCIPLE of authority as it relates to the Gospels.

And THAT was the whole Cafeteria Christianity point that Justin61790 alluded to.

Cafeteria Christianity as it relates to the Gospels is the Cafeteria “customer” picking and choosing what he/she will and won’t affirm—all based upon their own personal “interpretation” of Scripture of course.

And I just extended that same thought to the McChurch devotees.

 

[PRmerger]

Understand , but your adage is more about disagreeing, not not understanding, two different things.

ben, it absolutely is about not understanding. The entire point of the analogy is that the student DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the professor’s answer, while at the same time, knowing that IT IS THE CORRECT ANSWER.

 

[zz912]

Never heard this. I thought Revelations was written after the Gospel was written

That’s one view. But it’s not definitive. It’s possible that Revelation was written first. So since we can’t say for certain that Revelation was written after the Gospel, that means that Taz needs to eliminate the Gospel of John from his Bible just to be sure. Otherwise he might be adding to Scripture.

A bit like because some say oral/tradition was first, it kind of disproves or weakens SS…

So to I would say because certain scripture was accepted as "HolyWrit " as it was received, way before any formal assemblage of Catholic heirarchy to determine the matter.

Another words , the Corinthians did not wait for the bishop of Rome or the patriarch of Antioch ,or for a “council” to say , “The letter is OK, it is theopneustos”

And so the Galatians, Ephesians,Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon ?

Peter and the Apostles were the heirarchy. They had recognized, centralized authority over the Church. So their letters and writings to them held authority.

As to the claim that the people recognizing the writings as Scripture, there is a fatal flaw in that argument. Namely, there were writings that were believed to be Scripture, and were read in the Mass by many parishes, but were ultimately not included in the NT.

This goes back to the REASON there is a Bible in the first place. There was confusion among the parishes and dioceses about what writings should be and should not be read during the Mass. Eventually it came a point that the Church needed to regularize the Mass, and make sure the whole Church was celebrating the same Mass. So the Church formally declared what books were and were not allowed to be read a Mass. This collection of books (73) eventually were collected together into a single unit, which became known as the Bible.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben

How do you know that? They were simply letters received from an authority that were read out (some in all the churches, although we only preserved one). They later passed into Scripture through the discernment of the Church. We receive many pastoral letters from our bishops every year, but we don’t assume them to be Holy Writ. Why would the Corinthians have?

They didn’t ? Simple letters from an apostle, no one hinting of them being “scripture” till hundreds of years later ?