The Ideal Church

[st_felicity]

Maybe I was hasty in my accusation of being “scanned for approval”–There was a delay in the appearance of my post yesterday, but today there is no such delay–odd. When it happened before and I asked, I was told that it was due to the need to monitor posts due to some “spamming” that was occurring as a result of the topic matter. Whatever…this is what I posted there today in response to the writer of the blog’s acknowledgement of my taking issue with Sola Scriptura (next post)

 

[st_felicity]

Felicity on 18 Jul 2007 at 9:10 am #
***From DW:
“ The later books of the New Testament call their readers to remain faithful to the tradition that had already been handed down to them—that is, the teaching of the apostles as found in the scriptures—rather than be deceived by false teachers. Cf. Matt 15.1-6; Acts 17.11; Acts 18.28; 2 Tim 3.16; 2 Peter.”

RESPONSE:
Cf. Matt 15.1-6; This is referring to the “Korban Rule”—the “tradition” made-up by the Pharisees so that they could “give” their money to the Temple and appear to be penniless should family be in need of their assistance even though in reality, they had full access to their funds. Traditions of men are not the same thing as Sacred Tradition—it the difference between “customs” and the teachings directly from Christ and his Apostles. The Jews had traditions (customs) and Traditions which were part of the Law and the revelation of God in his covenantal relationship with his people. The same is true today in both Catholic and Protestant churches. There are customs, and then there is the Tradition handed on over the centuries from the Apostles. The difference lies in that the Protestant communities lop off those Sacred Traditions that they do not see clearly stated in the scriptures.

JOHN 5:37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
38 and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent.
39 You search 14 the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
40 But you do not want to come to me to have life.

The scripture are a testimony—but they are not the sole authoritative voice—per the scriptures themselves.

Acts 17.11; Those fair-minded Jews were verifying the claims of the Christians against the prophesies in the Scripture to determine if the claims had merit. Of course this should be done—and it should be done today–but I doubt any of those Jews were looking for the Scriptures of old to say “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah!” The scriptures are such that they testify to the truth, but they are not alone in that testimony.

2Tim.3:15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The scriptures are “useful” for giving “wisdom for salvation”—but they are by no means the sole authority. They clearly demonstrate throughout both the old and new testaments that the Church is the bulwark of the Sacred Deposit of Faith and holds this authority of the Faith of the Apostles in accord with scripture. When Catholics argue against Sola Scriptura—we are not against Scripture—it’s the “Sola” part that we take issue with.

***From DW:
“Early patristic writers recognized that their authority was not that of the apostles, and that the apostles’ writings were the standard by which truth and tradition must be measured. “

RESPONSE:
I think, perhaps, you misunderstand what “authority” is claimed. Apostolic authority is not changeable—it is of the Apostles—but it is handed on in succession and the authority of the apostle is given to succeeding generations as long as those succeeding generations are in accord with the teaching of the Apostles. One who has received Apostolic Authority cannot “make-up” new revelation—he must “hold fast” to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and serve the Church in accord with those teachings. Ignatius’ self-deprecating language reminds those who are in his position that their authority lies only in that they are servants to the Church and to their mission. I suppose this may fall under the other issue that Catholics and Protestants get in a tussle over, and that is the issue concerning the assurance one has of his salvation, but without going too far a-field, I will suggest that all humility and reverence for what was handed on to the Apostles themselves and then passed to succeeding generations of Church leaders is not at all a fault and does not point to a lack of authority—rather, it is more evidence that such teaching is in accord with the teaching of Jesus.
Thank you for addressing this issue!

 

[st_felicity]

Another response:

Felicity on 18 Jul 2007 at 11:31 am #
Dr. Wallace,
Again, thank-you for taking the time to respond—I find this exchange very interesting and informative concerning the differing perspectives.

***From DW:
Felicity, I think you’re missing a couple of points here. You repeatedly mentioned that scripture is not our sole authority. An earlier commentor suggested that you did not fully understand sola scriptura; this seems to be evident in your association of sola scriptura with ’sole authority.’ That’s NOT what Protestants believe; scripture is our final authority.

RESPONSE:
With all due respect, I believe that I do understand the distinction this attempts to make, but I simply disagree that “sole” and “final” are in fact much of a distinction at all. In both cases, if it’s not explicitly clarified in the texts of the codified scriptures to some nebulous degree decided upon by whatever individual is reading it, it ain’t relevant (depending on the individual interpretation of the scriptures). This problem of divergent interpretations then again reverts back to the question of authority and who has the authority to discern what the scriptures in fact reveal. “Sola Scriptura” gives that final authority to the scriptures—it’s a huge logical circle where no answer is final. So, it would be convenient to say that I ‘just don’t get the distinction”—if the distinction can’t be made clear, what distinction is there? …Perhaps if someone could explain what the difference is between “sole” authority and “final” authority in actual practice rather than merely in rhetorical claims of distinction.

***From DW:
And again, I would say that all of the evidence you provided only confirms that scripture is our final authority: the early church recognized the scriptures as their final authority.

RESPONSE:
I do not agree that the early church recognized scripture as the “final” authority—I believe there is ample evidence that they considered it co-equal and efficacious for instruction. You are aware that there is Sacred Tradition referred to in the NT not mentioned in the OT Scriptures, are you not? Some examples:
~~Matt. 2:23 “He shall be called a Nazarene” (That’s not in the OT—but Matthew records it as spoken prophesy. Unless you don’t accept the inerrancy of the Bible—Matthew is referring to Sacred Oral Tradition.)
~~Matthew 23:2 “the chair of Moses” (Jesus himself refers to this Sacred Oral Tradition of Church Authority! Jesus condemns the acts of the Pharisees, but also charges believers to follow their authority handed on by their position within the hierarchy. The Chair of Moses is nowhere in the OT, and yet the Son of God Himself advises believers to respect the authority of the Church!) –There are more…

The fact that scripture itself demonstrates reference to Sacred Tradition that is NOT IN SCRIPTURE is indicative that Scripture cannot be the FINAL authority, but a co-equal authority with some OTHER authority accessible to the believer.

***From DW:
And you are quite right that Protestants lopped off traditions that they did not see jiving with scripture. I’m not sure what’s wrong with that.

RESPONSE:
In my opinion, what’s wrong with that is that Protestants, although gifted with the light of Christ, are not bathed in the fullness of His light because they shade themselves from a portion of His revealed Glory because they rely on man-made doctrine such as Sola Scriptura rather than the bask in the breadth and depth of the revelation.

 

[st_felicity]

Another…
Felicity on 18 Jul 2007 at 8:48 pm #
***From NN:
“The reference was actually 4.17 not 4.7 and I will quote it for you here:…”

RESPONSE:
My mistake—I see that 17 does reference scripture a great deal more than 7. However, in context of what is being discussed (the 10 points of Doctrine), Cyril is addressing the heretical notion that the Holy Spirit was not One in Being with the Father and the Son and to guard against such heresy by verifying through the Scriptures on that point. To generalize that single statement to his entire instruction is to disregard all the other things this Doctor of the Church communicates. One very important point to note is in the introduction of that Catechetical Lecture 4 and should (since it is in context of the entire writing) be considered generally is:

“A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot’s lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:2 (A.D. 350).

This is clearly an indictment of those who would take scripture out of context and interpret on their own without the guidance of an authoritative teaching body.”

***From NN:
“The faith is said to have been built up out of the Scriptures—the Scriptures are the foundation of the faith—not a mere fortification.”

RESPONSE:
The Church and the Scriptures are dependent upon one another. The Scriptures express the written faith and many traditions (though not all as I demonstrated in a prior post), the Church is the authority that interprets and teaches.

***From NN:
“I have to wonder if you did actually check these references. Athanasius states plainly, “For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…” He goes on to speak about communicating the faith as learned from his teachers but this is a clear declaration of the sufficiency of Scripture. ”

RESPONSE:
Aside from the fact that you referenced 1.3, not 1.1.3, and hence the confusion concerning what you specifically referred to ( I guess I’m not alone in reference errors http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif ) ….That next line that you do NOT quote, but rather summarize is very important. That line says, “—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—“

That line asserts that one must have TEACHERS with the authority to interpret the scriptures. That is the point I have been making this whole time. YES, the scriptures are sufficient in that they tell you that you need authoritative teachers found in the Church—apparently Athanasius agrees.

 

[st_felicity]

My comments on blogcast on current Catholic/Protestant dialog at the Parchment and Pen blog:

Felicity on 20 Jul 2007 at 9:24 am
I enjoyed your blogcast–And I hope your daughter is doing better, my prayers are with you and the well-being of your family….
On to the issue…

As a Catholic, I’d like to ask you a question:
If you believe that the way we (Catholics) view “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” meant one thing originally, and we now have “changed” it to the current “articulation” of the statement meaning something different, how can a Catholic defend his Church? You have basically set up a system where even if we say you’re wrong about how you see our Church, we are simply misguided and deluding ourselves. Furthermore, you are happy to “let” us continue our mass delusion. With all due respect, is that your right? If we are wrong, by all means, shed your light on the gospel and “articulate” the error of our ways! To allow us to remain ignorant is not Christian.

In reality, I see several points that I could address in your blogcast, but if you simply believe I operate under a delusion you are happy to let me mire in, what point would there be in addressing any of it? Is that what you wish to do? Create a “system” where you can continue to believe what you believe and allow Catholics to believe what we believe so that you can imagine some sort of “unity” in this Body of Christ? To me, THAT seems like a self-imposed delusion.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your perspective on this issue.

Felicity

 

[st_felicity]

For some reason–once again, there is a delay in my post appearing over on the blog…

Anyway–Pastor Patton responded to a portion of the above post, but failed to get to the real issue. It sort of appeared to me to be an evasion since I believe I was clear. He merely responded to the first sentence and not the issue of the “system” of dismissing Catholic apologetics altogether.

He stated, *“I would say that if you acknowledge this change, then the system cannot be defened. Therefore, I believe the “doctrinal development” is the best way to progress if you wish to remain committed to the system.” *and then explained why he would let us (Catholics) continue to operate under the “rationalized” explanation of this supposed doctrinal “change.”

My response is as follows, but does not yet appear on the blog.

**

From CMP:
Hope that makes sense

RESPONSE:
It does make sense, but it really didn’t answer my main question which is (more succinctly):
If you consider Catholic apologetics on this matter self-delusion, and therefore dismiss the merit of the argument out of hand, are you not creating a system by which you justify and rationalize your own bias against Catholic hermeneutics?

You make the classic Petitio Principii error in logical reasoning. nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Perhaps if you better understood what “anathema” means you would better understand the issue concerning your perception of doctrinal “change” within the Catholic Church. (heh-heh—James White is mentioned in this article but do read past that, please.) catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

 

[st_felicity]

Someone named David responded to the post concerning the Pastor’s blogcast and my suggestion that the understanding of the term “anathema” was at the root of the issue…here’s portions of his post and my responses

***From David:
I read your article and find it somewhat amusing. The Council of Trent closed with the participants all shouting “Anathema, Anathema, anathema.” The article you listed said this…
“Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, “When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:

***From David (murmex) (continued)…
“Does this mean that what Paul said in Gal 1:8-9 is no longer a rule from God? 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Or, does I Cor 16:22 no longer apply? If anyone does not love the Lord–a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!”

RESPONSE:
Catholic belief is that as long as there is breath, there is hope that one would turn back to the Lord. Anathema means “set apart.” If one is set apart from God—not within the grace of His goodness, is that not an accursed position to be in? I don’t know where you get the “eternally condemned” translation…what is that from?—(I looked it up, and it’s the New International Version—if you’ll note, that’s the ONLY translation that says such a thing… http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 1:8-9;&version=31; ) Regardless—if you believe that, I’d be pretty concerned about following a teaching made up by Martin Luther called Sola Scriptura. That’s What Canon IX was attempting to warn people from following.

…continued

 

[st_felicity]

***From David (murmex)
“I realize that we may play with word meaning, but how am I to take these statements from Trent?
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

RESPONSE:
If one holds to an anti-Biblical doctrine of man, he sets himself apart from the grace of God.

***From David (murmex) quoting CoT
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

RESPONSE:
God can give us the grace to live his commandments—do you disagree with that? If you do, you are set apart from the teaching of the Apostles. With God all things are possible.

***From David (murmex) quoting CoT
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

RESPONSE:
Do you believe that just saying you believe in Jesus but not living His gospel will receive eternal life no matter what? That’s anti-Biblical also—and that person sets himself apart from God.

etc…I’ll respond to the others if you wish, but I think you get the gist…

***From David (murmex)
I must say I am in deep trouble by their stnadards. Why can’t we say there will be no unity until the question of where God speaks with authority is agreed upon?

RESPONSE:
I agree.
The Bible testifies to the Authority given the Church by Christ himself, even per your preferred translation:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=31#fen-NIV-23691cfen-NIV-23691c)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=31#fen-NIV-23691dfen-NIV-23691d)] will not overcome it.[e](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=31#fen-NIV-23691efen-NIV-23691e)] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=31#fen-NIV-23692ffen-NIV-23692f)] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=31#fen-NIV-23692gfen-NIV-23692g)] loosed in heaven."
~~~~~~~~~~
For insight into the historical context of the words of our Lord, see:
[jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=191&letter=K](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=191&letter=K)
[jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1073&letter=B](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1073&letter=B)
[jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1283&letter=A](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1283&letter=A)

 

[st_felicity]

More from David and my response…

Felicity on 23 Jul 2007 at 10:31 am #

***From David (murmex)
That is not my ground of justification before God, or in any way increases my justification. It does show my justification. Romans 3:20-22 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

RESPONSE:
The Catholic Church agrees with you. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
The issue is that you are interpreting the CoT saying something it is not because you understand their words differently than they intended them. In the Catholic faith, you cannot look at one statement in isolation of the body of the teaching. When Trent says,” If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, …. the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.” It is saying exactly that. The Church is a Mystery in that it is an institution of God. When you say the Church is somehow not operating under the Divine Revelation of God, one thing you contradict is the protection from corruption given by Jesus. If you contradict Jesus, you separate yourself from the Truth that He came to reveal—you separate yourself from God. The duty of the Church is to be clear about its teachings—Trent is being CLEAR—painfully so to many.

***From David (murmex)
I do believe what Jesus said in John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

RESPONSE:
From the Catholic perspective, Jesus commanded many things that do not occur within Protestant communities, but Protestant communities do follow many of His commandments as well. No one faults Protestants for what Truth they have, Catholics merely want to share the fullness of the Divine banquet with fellow Christians.

***From David (murmex)
(several Bible passages)

RESPONSE:
There is nothing contradictory to Catholic Doctrine in your reading of any of these verses (from what I can see)—Of course we should all live so that the laws are not necessary and therefore irrelevant. But as Paul states, the laws exist so that when we fail, we have a means to recognize our failure and return to righteousness. Jesus gave us the Church in order that we might have that nuptial union with God as Paul describes in Ephesians 5.

***From David (murmex)
I hope you see this as a discussion and not an angry argument. Thank you for your time. David

RESPONSE:
Of course I see it as Christians witnessing to one another because we love God! And thank-you as well.