The Reformation...reforming to What?

[Contarini]

HAHA! For what it’s worth…I’m enjoying your repsonses as well.

@Edwin (Contarini) : I see your point. I’m familiar with the “spiral argument” model that Keating discusses. For me it works…historical sources (some being books that also happen to be included in something call the “Canon of Scripture” )

All of them, really. The non-NT references to Jesus are vague, unreliable, and/or derivative of the canonical sources.

tell us about a man who claimed to be the Christ, He established a Church, etc…and this Church began to spread the Gospel and out of that came this Canon of Scripture.

Only Matthew of the four Gospels uses the word “ekklesia” for the community of Jesus’ followers. The key passage, Matt. 16, looks like an expansion of the more basic account in Mark which does not mention the Church. By normal historical methodology, this is pretty suspicious.

Whether the spiral method works “for you” is really irrelevant. To work at all, it must work apart from your faith commitment. Hence it does not work at all, and no honest person should use it. It needs to be killed in order for a serious conversation about these matters to proceed.

And as I said, even if it worked (as the reverse form of it, ironically, does work–you can’t prove historically that the parts of Scripture speaking of Jesus forming a Church are correct, but you can prove historically that a community of Christians accepting the Four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles as canonical, and claiming succession from the apostles, has existed since at least the second century), you would still not have the kind of “Authority” you are demanding.

But, I also realize that I’m looking at that through a “Catholic” lens. I’ve tried looking at it objectively and still come up satisfied…but I don’t know that I can be certain that I still don’t have those “Catholic glasses” on.

Precisely. Hence the best approach to objectivity you can get is to “triangulate” the opinions of scholars as a whole. When a view is held only by people with a particular faith commitment, it cannot be said to be historically proven. (That of course doesn’t make it false.) Hence, the spiral argument is utterly untenable with regard to Jesus establishing a Church–a claim contested historically even by Catholic scholars. (You may consider those scholars heretics, but the point is that if they are heretics, they are led to be so by their use of historical methodology.)

I just find myself at a loss when trying to determine how we can claim the Bible (as we know it today) is really the Word of God without an Authority to tell us, infallibly, that it is truly the Word of God (vs. the Koran or Book of Mormon…which both claim to be the word of God). Without some Authority in place, the sense of a ONE Church also falls apart because there is not definitive Authority to resolve conflicting views.

I guess you need to define what you mean by “Authority.” What is an “Authority”? What is the significance of the capital letter?

I could try to guess what you mean by this, with some probability of success, having been round this argument a number of times. But I’d rather let you do it yourself!

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=mark a;9539384]
“Evangelical Lord’s Supper” was understood by me to be not just a simple gathering of 2 or 3, but a Lutheran eucharist. Although it would not be for Catholics to partake, it seems we would wish only the best for Lutherans receiving their own eucharist. After all, it is my understanding they practice closed communion too.

Thank you for this, Mark.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Mark a,

I think I have taken this really as far as I am capable - there are two centuries worth of documents concerning the Real Presence in the Catholic Church.

When I look at the preponderence of evidence - and compare a private letter from a Cardinal who later becomes Pope with the official documents of Catholic teaching, I just can not how see this private lettter negates what has gone before. Additionally, I do not think Pope Benedict XVI has made any further statements in the area of non-Catholics and the Real Presence that would contradict any of the previous teachings of the Catholic Church. In my personal opinion, this private letter can not trump the other documents.

Yes, I can see how you would conclude the meaning of ‘Evangelical Lord’s Supper’. It this were the only thing in print - I’d go for it, too. But, thre are other documents, and this requires serious attention. In light of this - just what is Benedict XVI telling us?

God bless

Hi Tom,
I think Cardinal Ratzinger is telling us exactly what he says: that there is no reason to deny “the salvation granting presence” of our Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper. He doesn’t get into confection, validity of clergy, or even real, substantial presence. He isn’t vague, really. “The salvation granting presence.”

As a Lutheran, I take two things away from his letter. 1) It is the sign of a growing level of respect and dialogue between our clergy, even if at tmes it has not filtered down to the laity, 2) encouragement that the Spirit is working within our midst to bring us closer together.

Finally, I do not need Cardinal Ratzinger’s words to know our Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. I know it is without them, but it is nice to hear this level of respect, and I am grateful.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

One of my classes was with Bishop Meeking on ecumenism who explained why we consider some Protestant churches as 'churches, and the rest, ecclesial communities. Bishop Meeking was on the Council of Ecumenism in Rome at Vatican II.

Both Anglican and Lutherans are considered churches because they retain a bishop. The other beliefs are considered ecclesial communities because they have dropped practically all of the 7 sacraments. Both Anglican and Lutheran churches have the sacrament of confirmation, or christening, a further strengthening and confirming one with full will in Christ.

In the USA, we have many non-denominational communities that have pretty much severed all their roots with the universal church, and so they have a much harder time understanding their Mother faith, worship, and sacramental life, along with the discipline and perspective one has to be part of a church. My former pastor thinks that most people today cannot handle being Catholic because they cannot trust God in human authority and take on discipline meted to them by human hands.

Of course, we do not see our ecclesiastics working as individual men. That is again a construct of Protestantism as well as its vision…seeing all in personal interpretation based on man made, breakaway communities. There is a severance with the communion of the Holy Trinity as well. The ecclesiastics are working in communion with the Holy Trinity with no fragmentation from the central authority of the Church, and the Eucharist fulfills and affirms the communion we have.

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise, going back here on the posts, the selling of indulgences was more a perception by those who were already drawing their focus away from Christ, and more on party politics.

On reading of the excesses of the Church prior to the Reformation, there is one, just one German priest who stands out as giving the impression he was selling in return for blessings for heaven.

Any devout Christian…meaning Catholic here, knows that money is the root of all evil, and it most ludicrous in catechesis that we buy our way into heaven. That is a spin.

I want to do more readings just to see how much buying one’s way into heaven was really happening.

The bigger picture is more ethnic, more political and nationalistic…as was happening in Germany and England, and a less transcendent faith. Likewise, there was an authentic movement beginning to have more personal access to Scripture…like Bible fellowship where in modern times we come together privately to learn the Word of God…because in the big picture, the printing press was being invented.

And we have to recall St. Paul’s words that in the latter days, many people would go here and about, a great deal of activity and travel, and – that many people would read. My two grandmothers had only an 8th grade education, which was common for those born in the 1890’s.

In Germany, there were parish movements started by priests and lay people to offset what was happening across the country of those rising up to renounce Catholicism. But layl groups historically, no matter how good, are ineffective against tidal waves of people breaking faith.

True and effective reform must be initiated and sustained by ecclesiastics.

But as was reflected in the Council of Florence, that was also addressing heresies of Swiss bishops and the split with the Orthodox…there was too much happening, a real dismantling of ecclesial unity throughout the Christian world.

The Reformation, I read some where some time ago, was really a punishment against lax Catholics. It greatly wounds the unity we should have as Christians. Christ prayed for unity…because He said, it would be this unity that would convert the world.

 

[JonNC]

One of my classes was with Bishop Meeking on ecumenism who explained why we consider some Protestant churches as 'churches, and the rest, ecclesial communities. Bishop Meeking was on the Council of Ecumenism in Rome at Vatican II.

Both Anglican and Lutherans are considered churches because they retain a bishop. The other beliefs are considered ecclesial communities because they have dropped practically all of the 7 sacraments. Both Anglican and Lutheran churches have the sacrament of confirmation, or christening, a further strengthening and confirming one with full will in Christ.

Hi Kathleen,
While I appreciate Bishop Meeking’s take on this, I have a suspicion that some here will challenge it. I think that the intent of the distinction of “church” as compared to “ecclesial community” isn’t based on just having bishops, but having bishops who are in succession.
I may be wrong, however, and Bishop Meeking is far better euqipped to respond to this than I am.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

He was stating the denial of most sacraments, Jon…and when I read fundamentalist posts here, it is evident that they have much loss of understanding the experience and faith of those in the Church, and those who base their faith on application of text.

He was mostly discussing the issue of language in regards to Luther. The Church has taught we are saved by the grace of faith, and it was more issues of Luther’s personality in the religious and cultural world he lived in. Yes, the Church needed reform, but it did not need new doctrine, as as Luther had done, denied the working of the Holy Spirit transmitting faith witnessed in Christ by the apostles for each succeeding generation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

I would appreciate you clarifying this section for me:

Only Matthew of the four Gospels uses the word “ekklesia” for the community of Jesus’ followers. The key passage, Matt. 16, looks like an expansion of the more basic account in Mark which does not mention the Church. By normal historical methodology, this is pretty suspicious.

I realize that some claim Mark was the first of the Gospel Writers to produce his work, and that Matthew was probably aware of what Mark had written. But, this is not a fact (carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom )

However, when you identify what Matthew wrote in his 16th Chapter, as ‘suspicious’ - this appears to be challenging the Divine Inspiration that Matthew (as were the other writers) was given. Each Evangelist approach his work from a unique perspective - there are differences when the individual Synoptics are compared and contrasted with one another. Questioning Matthew 16 as legitimate because it does not agree with Mark is a major stretch of both reason and historical fact when the Early Church Fathers are brought in to provide further information. Here’s a link: staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

God bless

 

[Isaiah45_9]

In the USA, we have many non-denominational communities that have pretty much severed all their roots with the universal church, and so they have a much harder time understanding their Mother faith, worship, and sacramental life, along with the discipline and perspective one has to be part of a church. My former pastor thinks that most people today cannot handle being Catholic because they cannot trust God in human authority and take on discipline meted to them by human hands.

Amen, not just Catholic but any other form of discipline that resembles anything done by a group of humans. IMHO, this is the root of Bible only communities, the firm denial of any other authority other than the Word of God, which is a good thing btw. But the problem lies in that the book doesn’t interpret itself.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Isaiah45,

Not only doesn’t the book interpret itself, it does not set itself up containing everything Christ said and did - and, it didn’t approve its own Canon!

It does however tell us that Christ founded His Church on Peter and Christ gave Peter full authority to bind and lose - along with the Keys to identify his authority. This is a section that all Protestants dismiss as written, claim Catholics misinterpret, or essentially evade when questioned. These are the same groups that claim they believe everything in the Bible!

God bless

Amen, not just Catholic but any other form of discipline that resembles anything done by a group of humans. IMHO, this is the root of Bible only communities, the firm denial of any other authority other than the Word of God, which is a good thing btw. But the problem lies in that the book doesn’t interpret itself.

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin,

I would appreciate you clarifying this section for me:

I realize that some claim Mark was the first of the Gospel Writers to produce his work, and that Matthew was probably aware of what Mark had written

It’s not just “some.” A large majority of scholars believe this, though Matthaean priority is still very much a live option.

But, this is not a fact

I didn’t say it was. Hence the phrase “looks like.” That’s not the language I would use when stating a fact. It’s the most probable conclusion given normal scholarly methodology.

However, when you identify what Matthew wrote in his 16th Chapter, as ‘suspicious’ - this appears to be challenging the Divine Inspiration that Matthew (as were the other writers) was given.

Only because you take that word out of context and omit my qualifier: “by normal historical methodology.” I’m not saying that the theological truth of the passage is suspicious. If you apply purely historical/literary methods of analysis, as you would to any other ancient text, then the most likely conclusion is that Jesus did not say these words. That’s enough to blow the “spiral argument” into a million pieces, even if it weren’t already doomed by the fact that historical methods can only give you probable results anyway.

Your response shows why the “spiral argument” is, objectively, cheating. (I don’t mean that people who use it are deliberately cheating, of course.) The spiral argument supposedly presupposes that one is using purely historical methods and not assuming inspiration–but as soon as someone really uses purely historical methods, they’re “accused” of denying inspiration.

Here are the possibilities as I see them, none of which deny inspiration:

1. Matthaean priority is in fact correct, as some scholars still argue, and Mark is abridging Matthew’s account, omitting some of the things Jesus said because they don’t suit his purpose. (It would certainly be possible for Matthaean priority to be correct and for the passage still not to be historical, but there would be fewer reasons to question the historicity of the “keys” passage if Matthew were written first–which of course is one of the reasons that conservative Christians, particularly Catholics, are more likely than others to favor Matthaean priority.)
2. Mark was written first, but Matthew has further information which he adds to Mark’s account.
3. Mark was written first, and Matthew is giving a theological “commentary” on the meaning of the incident recorded in Mark.

Now given the general tone and method of Matthew (particularly his habit of providing more in-depth theological explanations of things referred to more cryptically in Mark), and given the majority opinion that Mark was written first (which I find convincing for many reasons, though it’s no more than a strong probability), the third of these is the most likely.

People who think that this kind of theological commentary is incompatible with inspiration (a position I think untenable for both scholarly and theological reasons), or that it is specifically problematic in this passage (a more reasonable position, particularly from a Catholic point of view) are certainly not behaving irrationally when they choose to believe that either 1 or 2 is correct. Just as long as you are honest about the fact that it’s your theological assumptions that lead you to dismiss the third option. (And, of course, that makes the “spiral argument” untenable, at least with regard to this passage–and this passage is key to the argument, because it’s the clearest place in the NT where Jesus appears to be establishing an authoritative Church.)

Each Evangelist approach his work from a unique perspective - there are differences when the individual Synoptics are compared and contrasted with one another. Questioning Matthew 16 as legitimate because it does not agree with Mark is a major stretch of both reason and historical fact when the Early Church Fathers are brought in to provide further information. Here’s a link: staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

Leaving aside the illegitimate way in which the “staycatholic” website is conflating “primacy of Peter” with “primacy of Rome,” these passages don’t constitute strong evidence in favor of the historicity of Matt. 16. The first passage cited that refers to Matt. 16 is from Tertullian, a century later than the writing of Matthew if you take the relatively late dating favored by most scholars.

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

Yes, I did take that statement out of context - as you point out … and I did it because I really did not see it as making any difference to your realy (at least as I saw it) statement.

I am sure that there are gifted poets who have looked at the poetry contained in the Bible and written scholarly documents on what they have found and what they thought. Historian and archilolgists have plowed the earth - and the pages of the Bible - seeing what they think fit and did not fit based on what was previously knows. Or, at least thought to be known. Such secular adventures into the Bible provide insights that are not readily availabe to those who want to know more about the Bible as literature or history or geography. But, in the context of the Reformation - so what?

We will not be judged on our knowledge of biblical poetry or historic events - rather, did we believe in the Word of God AND THEN put our beliefs into practice through the Grace of God? Did we feed the hungry or did we spend all our time on rhyme and meter of biblical poetry?

From what I have seen, Luther was no ‘shrinking violet’ when it came to setting up Scripture the way he wanted it set. He was unhappy with those 7 books - and took them out of the order of the Canon to show that he questioned them. But, I just have to ask myself why he left Matthew in first place (or, more to the point, why he just didn’t relegate Chapter 16 to another back section. I don’t know. But, anyone who would dismiss James as a 'Gospel of straw" (because he did address it was NOT Faith alone that mattered - but Faith combined with Works… )and leave Peter being appointed the First Pope and given the Keys by Christ - had to know that there would be questions.

The order of the Canon was never set down in any of the Books of the Bible - the order was strictly the product of the Catholic Church. And, Luther accepted that. Now, to have you questioning the order - not simply as a historical matter of interest, or an effort to see if Matthew gave details to Mark, or Mark was the shortened version of Matthew is an odd inquiry to my way of thinking. At this point, how could we possibly find out? To claim that Catholics want Matthew befor Mark because of Matt 16 - is a two edged sword. Does Matt 16 identify a reality that Protestants would rather dismiss? I don’t know. But, what I do know is, that not only is Matthew before Mark, but the ECF (link I provided previously) did not disputre Peter and Peter’s successors being the Vicar of Christ on earth.

So, please teill me, what is your real argument here?

God bless

It’s not just “some.” A large majority of scholars believe this, though Matthaean priority is still very much a live option.

I didn’t say it was. Hence the phrase “looks like.” That’s not the language I would use when stating a fact. It’s the most probable conclusion given normal scholarly methodology.

Only because you take that word out of context and omit my qualifier: “by normal historical methodology.” I’m not saying that the theological truth of the passage is suspicious. If you apply purely historical/literary methods of analysis, as you would to any other ancient text, then the most likely conclusion is that Jesus did not say these words. That’s enough to blow the “spiral argument” into a million pieces, even if it weren’t already doomed by the fact that historical methods can only give you probable results anyway.

Your response shows why the “spiral argument” is, objectively, cheating. (I don’t mean that people who use it are deliberately cheating, of course.) The spiral argument supposedly presupposes that one is using purely historical methods and not assuming inspiration–but as soon as someone really uses purely historical methods, they’re “accused” of denying inspiration.

Here are the possibilities as I see them, none of which deny inspiration:

1. Matthaean priority is in fact correct, as some scholars still argue, and Mark is abridging Matthew’s account, omitting some of the things Jesus said because they don’t suit his purpose. (It would certainly be possible for Matthaean priority to be correct and for the passage still not to be historical, but there would be fewer reasons to question the historicity of the “keys” passage if Matthew were written first–which of course is one of the reasons that conservative Christians, particularly Catholics, are more likely than others to favor Matthaean priority.)
2. Mark was written first, but Matthew has further information which he adds to Mark’s account.
3. Mark was written first, and Matthew is giving a theological “commentary” on the meaning of the incident recorded in Mark.

Now given the general tone and method of Matthew (particularly his habit of providing more in-depth theological explanations of things referred to more cryptically in Mark), and given the majority opinion that Mark was written first (which I find convincing for many reasons, though it’s no more than a strong probability), the third of these is the most likely.

People who think that this kind of theological commentary is incompatible with inspiration (a position I think untenable for both scholarly and theological reasons), or that it is specifically problematic in this passage (a more reasonable position, particularly from a Catholic point of view) are certainly not behaving irrationally when they choose to believe that either 1 or 2 is correct. Just as long as you are honest about the fact that it’s your theological assumptions that lead you to dismiss the third option. (And, of course, that makes the “spiral argument” untenable, at least with regard to this passage–and this passage is key to the argument, because it’s the clearest place in the NT where Jesus appears to be establishing an authoritative Church.)

Leaving aside the illegitimate way in which the “staycatholic” website is conflating “primacy of Peter” with “primacy of Rome,” these passages don’t constitute strong evidence in favor of the historicity of Matt. 16. The first passage cited that refers to Matt. 16 is from Tertullian, a century later than the writing of Matthew if you take the relatively late dating favored by most scholars.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, Isaiah…people reap alot of troubles in their lives when they refuse discipline and good order…and integrity.

The other early morning I couldn’t sleep. There are alot of people who wake up at 3 am to pray for people who are denying the Lord and having all sorts of trouble. they also pray for the perseverance of the just and conversion of sinners.

I felt people’s prayers for me to endure in the Lord…first time…so we keep praying for the world and its conversion.

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin,

Yes, I did take that statement out of context - as you point out … and I did it because I really did not see it as making any difference to your realy (at least as I saw it) statement.

The word “uncharitable” gets overused on this forum, often for behavior that is simply tactless. But suggesting that someone is “really” saying something other than what they claim to be saying (i.e., that they have some hidden agenda) is genuinely uncharitable.

But, in the context of the Reformation - so what?

This is a digression, though a relevant one. The “spiral argument” is often used to refute a legitimate challenge to an untenable argument made by some Catholics about authority.

It’s relevant more broadly because one of the problems with the Reformation is precisely the fact that the authenticity of Scripture can’t be firmly established by purely historical means–not to the degree that Christian theology needs. Faith is required–faith in the Church. Turning the debate into an epistemological one, as if the Church’s “Authority,” grounded allegedly in some kind of foolproof historical argument, could remove all possibility of doubt, is historically bogus and theologically destructive.

If you’re not interested in this part of the conversation–well, no one said you had to be.

From what I have seen, Luther was no ‘shrinking violet’ when it came to setting up Scripture the way he wanted it set. He was unhappy with those 7 books - and took them out of the order of the Canon to show that he questioned them.

There was a pretty longstanding pattern of scholars questioning whether these books should be put on the same level as the others. Luther didn’t just cut them out because he didn’t like them. You’d be on more solid ground with James–but there again, other people in that era challenged James on other grounds.

But, I just have to ask myself why he left Matthew in first place (or, more to the point, why he just didn’t relegate Chapter 16 to another back section. I don’t know.

Because Luther was not as cavalier as you think him. He could mess around with books that there was a tradition of questioning. There was no such tradition with regard to Matthew. Luther did what he could, though, by arguing that John was somehow the central Gospel by which the others should be interpreted, and that the Synoptics primarily recorded Jesus’ teachings, which (Luther said–don’t blame me) were of secondary importance.

But, anyone who would dismiss James as a 'Gospel of straw" (because he did address it was NOT Faith alone that mattered - but Faith combined with Works… )and leave Peter being appointed the First Pope and given the Keys by Christ

Of course, that’s not what Luther thought was happening.

The order of the Canon was never set down in any of the Books of the Bible - the order was strictly the product of the Catholic Church. And, Luther accepted that. Now, to have you questioning the order - not simply as a historical matter of interest, or an effort to see if Matthew gave details to Mark, or Mark was the shortened version of Matthew is an odd inquiry to my way of thinking.

Well, your way of thinking is poorly informed. First of all, canonical order doesn’t necessarily mean chronological order (Paul’s letters are arranged by order of length, for instance). But more to the point, Marcan priority is the majority view among scholars, including among Catholic scholars. There is nothing odd about it at all, whether it’s right or wrong.

At this point, how could we possibly find out?

Not with certainty, but with some degree of probability. If you want to discuss Marcan priority, we can start a new thread on the “Sacred Scripture” forum, though it wouldn’t be the first such thread by any means! There’s a poster on the forum (patrick with a number after him) who has a pretty interesting version of Matthaean priority that he defends.

To claim that Catholics want Matthew befor Mark because of Matt 16 - is a two edged sword. Does Matt 16 identify a reality that Protestants would rather dismiss?

The possibility that Marcan priority is affected by Protestant theological bias is certainly a serious one. But I think the evidence is stronger than that–and as I keep saying, the vast majority of Catholic scholars agree.

I should not have suggested that Matthaean priority is more commonly maintained by conservative Catholics than by conservative Protestants–I mentioned it only as a possibility, but it was a distraction.

I don’t know. But, what I do know is, that not only is Matthew before Mark, but the ECF (link I provided previously) did not disputre Peter and Peter’s successors being the Vicar of Christ on earth.

They didn’t have to dispute it, because no Pope claimed that particular title until the eleventh century.

I’m not disputing that the Fathers spoke of Roman primacy in various forms. However, if you look at the lists of prooftexts provided by apologetics websites, you’ll see that relatively few of them (especially before the fourth century) link Rome to the Petrine promises in Matt. 16.

I believe that Jesus gave Peter the keys, and that the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter. But as a matter of historical honesty, there’s a certain amount of sleight-of-hand going on in those lists of quotes. People take one set of passages that speak of Rome, and another that speak of Jesus giving the keys to Peter, and then assume that the two sets of passages connect with each ohter.

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

I apologize for being uncharitable.

Well, your way of thinking is poorly informed. First of all, canonical order doesn’t necessarily mean chronological order (Paul’s letters are arranged by order of length, for instance). But more to the point, Marcan priority is the majority view among scholars, including among Catholic scholars. There is nothing odd about it at all, whether it’s right or wrong.

I wasn’t speaking about chronological order (or several of Paul’s letters would appear before the Gospels). freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/index.html And this link lists Mark as having completed hiw work before Matthew. The issue remains - no book in the Bible gives the order of the Canon - and that order was established by the Catholic Church. The question is, why was Matthew selected to lead the Gospels?

One reason that I think we can quick dispatch is that this hinged on Matt 16. The Canon was developed around 400AD in the order we have today. There was no question about Peter being the leader of the Apostles and then the Church. That his successors were the leaders of the Church was accepted by the ECF and ther are historical records to provide the succession.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

There was something to this order other then chronology at work here. Any idea?

God bless

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin,

I apologize for being uncharitable.

And I apologize for being brusque and snooty!

I wasn’t speaking about chronological order (or several of Paul’s letters would appear before the Gospels). freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/index.html And this link lists Mark as having completed hiw work before Matthew. The issue remains - no book in the Bible gives the order of the Canon - and that order was established by the Catholic Church. The question is, why was Matthew selected to lead the Gospels?

One reason that I think we can quick dispatch is that this hinged on Matt 16. The Canon was developed around 400AD in the order we have today. There was no question about Peter being the leader of the Apostles and then the Church. That his successors were the leaders of the Church was accepted by the ECF and ther are historical records to provide the succession.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

There was something to this order other then chronology at work here. Any idea?

God bless

OK–I get the point, and it’s an important one. I think you’re oversimplifying the issue of patristic witness to the Petrine succession (when the Fathers comment directly on Matt. 16, many of them identify the rock as Peter’s confession of faith, or say that the keys were given to all bishops, or so on), but that’s not really the point here.

I don’t think it’s hard to see the reasons why Matthew was given canonical priority. It’s a fuller account than Mark, and it pays particular attention to questions of OT/NT continuity. Probably the fact that it was thought to be by an apostle played a role (though John, which bears the name of a far more important apostle, was placed fourth!), and last but not least I think the emphasis on the Church (including but not limited to the role of Peter) was extremely important.

The thing about patristic testimony is that their interests were primarily theological. That’s not to say that their historical testimony is worthless–far from it–but I give them a lot more weight on theological questions than on strictly historical ones, unless we’re talking about very early sources, and to some extent even then.

Marcan priority has been a theological boon in many ways, because it’s helped us see the distinctive message of Mark, which had gotten overlaid for the most part by Matthew because of the belief that Mark summarized Matthew.

But I do think that modern scholarship often seems to dislike Matthew a bit–Matthew’s polemic, his interest in church discipline and boundary-drawing, his frequent references to hell, are all rather unpopular themes.

I feel as if my formation as a Christian (in a devout family which often felt like a continual Bible study) was shaped (with regard to the Gospels) largely by Matthew and John. And this turns out to be pretty typical of the Christian tradition as a whole. I’ve found it refreshing to learn to appreciate the distinctive voices of Mark and Luke. But of course in the end they are all inspired and all needed.

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

You said something else that caught my eye…

OK–I get the point, and it’s an important one. I think you’re oversimplifying the issue of patristic witness to the Petrine succession (when the Fathers comment directly on Matt. 16, many of them identify the rock as Peter’s confession of faith, or say that the keys were given to all bishops, or so on), but that’s not really the point here.

I think it would be very helpful for you to provide a reference identifying which ECF identified it was, “…Peter’s confession of faith…” that Christ was addressing and not Peter himself that Christ was going to build His Chruch. This, to me, is a decidedly Protestant argument to dismiss Peter from the leadership role that Christ gave to him. Now, here are links to the ECF that actually view Peter as the leader of the Church:

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp (this is from Dr. Scott Hahn and is especially rich in how the Protestant arguments consistently fall short of disproving Peter’s Primacy.)

“…keys given to all bishops…” cries out for documentation. Matt 16 only admits of one set of keys - there weren’t 11 other copies recorded as given out at any time and in any New Testament work. Truly, this is not Scriptural and there is no ECF who has identified this and it certainly does not mesh with historical evidence.

My thought is that the 4 Gospels were ordered the way they were to show a particular presentation style. Matthew begins with the ancestors of Christ and Mark begins with the public ministry of Christ. Luke beins with the pregnancy of Elizabeth and John takes an almost totally different start by discussing Christ’s Divinity and they jumping right into the ministry of John the Baptist (similar to Mark). Given that there are only 4 to work with - my personal impression is that there is a theme being presented in the beginning section of each Gospel that is used by the Catholic Church to logically present Jesus Christ to the world based on the writings of others.

So, unlike the Epistles - order is not based on size, and there really isn’t much focus on who wrote what and when this was written. I really do not think Matthew’s position as First Gospel had anything to do with Matt 16 - and the reason for this is that there wasn’t an argument of the pope being in charge of the Church. But, this is just my personal opinion.

God bless

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that the Reformers themselves researched and relied upon Church history and the ECFs (when formulating their teachings on Christianity) or that, generally speaking, it is the practice of today’s Protestants to do this?

Like a child who leaves his parents house, the child takes the principles and morals that he chooses.

IMHO, if we look at the Reformers/Protestants outside this premise we are missing the point.

If you pick and chose ECFs you can pretty much see the major points of the Reformation. For example: Clement of Rome and Justification by Faith Alone; Augustine and Predestination, Tertulian for Church’s authority and not one man, Jerome on the Apocrypha, Cyprian against Rome’s primacy, etc.

The problem is that the ECFs need to be looked at as what they were: All members of Once Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Protestants are children of the Catholic Church, whether they realize it or not and whether we realize it or not.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Isaiah45,

The idea of ‘children leaving home’ is quaint but, honestly, it doesn’t quite hit the mark. Rebel lead revolt that cause many in the 16th Century to abandon the Church founded by Christ on Peter - something like the parable of the Prodigal Son may be another way to look at these events in a more realistic fashion. But, tweeking metaphors isn’t why I am writing. You really have some serious - and misleading - errors that need to be addressed. Oh, and you did have a small type towards the end.

In brief, you seem to think that the Early Church Fathers were really supporters of ideas championed by those in revolt during the 16th Century. Nothing could be further from the truth. So, from the list that you provided, I have - not opinion as you provided - but actual researched references. Here they are:

Clement of Rome and Justification by Faith Alone; cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/09/did-clement-of-rome-teach-justification.html

Augustine and Predestination, ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

Tertulian for Church’s authority and not one man, catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2011/01/lesson-on-authority-from-tertullian-not.html

Jerome on the Apocrypha, justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

Cyprian against Rome’s primacy philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm

While I am not sure where you got your ideas from, I would like you to look at these sites and we can discuss them.

Oh, and the identifier is ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I know you would not be disrespectful to the Catholic Church - especially on CAF - by inserting a ‘c’ into One. You can find the actual wording in the Nicene Creed - here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

God bless

Like a child who leaves his parents house, the child takes the principles and morals that he chooses.

IMHO, if we look at the Reformers/Protestants outside this premise we are missing the point.

If you pick and chose ECFs you can pretty much see the major points of the Reformation. For example: Clement of Rome and Justification by Faith Alone; Augustine and Predestination, Tertulian for Church’s authority and not one man, Jerome on the Apocrypha, Cyprian against Rome’s primacy, etc.

The problem is that the ECFs need to be looked at as what they were: All members of Once Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Protestants are children of the Catholic Church, whether they realize it or not and whether we realize it or not.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Like a child who leaves his parents house, the child takes the principles and morals that he chooses.

IMHO, if we look at the Reformers/Protestants outside this premise we are missing the point.

If you pick and chose ECFs you can pretty much see the major points of the Reformation. For example: Clement of Rome and Justification by Faith Alone; Augustine and Predestination, Tertulian for Church’s authority and not one man, Jerome on the Apocrypha, Cyprian against Rome’s primacy, etc.

The problem is that the ECFs need to be looked at as what they were: All members of Once Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Protestants are children of the Catholic Church, whether they realize it or not and whether we realize it or not.

Hi Tom,

Sigh… if is the biggest small word in the English vocabulary

If you see my quote again you can see I said IF followed by **PICK **and CHOSE. Further, what I was referring to, was the arguments presented by Protestants who are picking and choosing ECFs to justify their theology.

Not my theology…

I don’t seem to think anything other than the discussions I’ve had with my protestant brothers and sisters. But perhaps you are the shadow I’ve been seen with my peripheral vision lately

And when I say the are children of the Church, I am also saying they are our brothers. Separated or not, we are all brothers in Christ.

My “ideas” come from real people and not from websites and if you happen to be in North Texas shoot me an email and we can go over my Catholicism and yours with a few beers and BBQ

As for the typo, maybe it was a Freudian slip

A Dios,

Jose