I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
I think you already posted this a few messages back (post #173)… you have to post the second half…
ken
- Status
ken
S
SteveG
Guest
…sorry about the mix up…
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.
As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.
Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.
…next…
Who is 'YOU’
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.
As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.
Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.
…next…
Who is 'YOU’
S
SteveG
Guest
Who is the 'YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.
Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.
…next…
binding and loosing
…
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.
Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.
…next…
binding and loosing
…
S
SteveG
Guest
Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.
For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To
Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”
In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew 16
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.
…continued…
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.
For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To
bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note
whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”
In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew 16
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.
…continued…
S
SteveG
Guest
The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?
1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?
6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;
What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
** Evidence 1**
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
** Evidence 2**
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
** Evidence 3**
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.
** Argument 1**
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).
…OK, that’s enough for one day. If you are still interested I’ll continue tomorrow.
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?
1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?
6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;
What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
** Evidence 1**
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
** Evidence 2**
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
** Evidence 3**
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.
** Argument 1**
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).
…OK, that’s enough for one day. If you are still interested I’ll continue tomorrow.
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
If you are copying and pasting from an already written work, go ahead. I’ll paste it into a word file and give it a read.
I was thinking about delving a little bit into the issue of the patristic exegesis of Matt. 16:18 as I know several apologists have debated the issue back and forth. Their works should give a helpful starting psuh to further study…I’ll post up whatever I find when I get something worth saying and I’ll try to get some feedback on your paper as well.
ken
S
SteveG
Guest
II Paradox II:
Again, your call as to whether you are even interested at this point, or whether you’d rather chew on what I’ve presented so far. Also, if it would save you aggravation, I can just email you what I have posted here in word format.
I am copying and pasting from a work I put together (actually it’s still a work in progress at this point). Your call as to whether you want me to continue, I certainly don’t want to cram this down your throat as it’s just my own research and you are the first to actually read it. Let me outline the remainder of the arguments and you can tell me if you are even interested or not.
Code:
In my mind, the next steps are ...- Showing the primacy of Peter among the apostles.
- ** Showing the evidence for apostolic succession (inlcuding the role of Peter).**
- ** Continuance of all the prior arguments into the first few Centuries of the Church.**
Again, your call as to whether you are even interested at this point, or whether you’d rather chew on what I’ve presented so far. Also, if it would save you aggravation, I can just email you what I have posted here in word format.
Lemme know...
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
I’ll just read what you’ve got so far… there are only so many hours in the day and quite a few disparate concepts to tie together. I’ll get back to you when I have something interesting to say in response.
ken
S
SteveG
Guest
II Paradox II:
If anyone else is interested in my rantings, PM me and I can send you what i have. I think I’ve dominated this thread with machine gun posts too much already.
Sounds good. Gives me time to clean up the rest if you end up being interested.
If anyone else is interested in my rantings, PM me and I can send you what i have. I think I’ve dominated this thread with machine gun posts too much already.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hey Shib,
My apologies for missing your post way back in 119:
Shibboleth:
As I stated earlier, one clear difference is illustrated by the definition of the Marian dogmas. Here we have beliefs being made binding on adherents of the Catholic faith that are primarily based on Tradition and the Magisterium. Protestants try very hard not to do that kind of thing.
It seems to me that, while in the end it still comes down to the decision of the persion as whether or not to believe, the Catholic is burdened, if you will, by more instances where binding beliefs are imposed. The Protestant in the end is only bound by what he believes is taught by Scripture. The end result is that Prots have a much smaller list of dogma or binding beliefs than Cats.
This seems the inevitable result when you have one religious body willing to let a living authority define dogma and the other not.
Cordially,
Ferd
My apologies for missing your post way back in 119:
I agree. What I am trying to zero in on is exactly how we differ in our R’s OF and what practical differences it makes.
As I stated earlier, one clear difference is illustrated by the definition of the Marian dogmas. Here we have beliefs being made binding on adherents of the Catholic faith that are primarily based on Tradition and the Magisterium. Protestants try very hard not to do that kind of thing.
It seems to me that, while in the end it still comes down to the decision of the persion as whether or not to believe, the Catholic is burdened, if you will, by more instances where binding beliefs are imposed. The Protestant in the end is only bound by what he believes is taught by Scripture. The end result is that Prots have a much smaller list of dogma or binding beliefs than Cats.
This seems the inevitable result when you have one religious body willing to let a living authority define dogma and the other not.
Cordially,
Ferd
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Not whether or not to believe, if you do not believe these things then you fail to be Catholic. A Catholic is burdened with more information in which they must interpret correctly. It may be that this additional information clarifies a past misconception and is far easier to interpret correctly than its predecessor, but over time this will change and the original intent will become less apparent. When this happens the Catholic Church may once again produce documents to clarify the issue, but I am not sure that they have more clarity than a well-educated individual.
I would say that this is true when the Catholic Church is making proclamations that have not been addressed in Scripture. When the Catholic Church makes clarifications on interpretations of Biblical Scriptures then I do not see a longer binding list. I do see a list in which one must ignore the original scripture and try to interpret the clarification of the Church. I find this to be a problem because it distances one from the original.
I would agree with the addition that the Catholic Church body is not “willing to let a living body define authority” so much as they are bound by their past authority to do so to remain Catholic.
B
bob
Guest
II Paradox II:
Does the scripture tell us which?
Which non-scriptual tradition is more binding - the Catholic tradition which gives us The Bible or the Protestant tradition which threw out the 7 books?
Does the scripture tell us which?
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Neither, but one should skeptically take the advice of those more wise and learned than we.Which non-scriptual tradition is more binding - the Catholic tradition which gives us The Bible or the Protestant tradition which threw out the 7 books?
Does the scripture tell us which?
B
bob
Guest
So you infallibly chose the Protestant tradition as wiser?
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
Scripture itself tells you neither one (Though it can give you hints and outright declarations at times). The recognition of the canon was a historical process and is primarily critiqued by looking at history.
One more note here is that the apocrypha actually were in the class of things not held binding over believers for a long time in the church (In the sense of being a precondition for communion). Lest you forget, many theologians and bishops followed Jerome in his skepticism about the apocrypha all the way into the dawn of the reformation (and some even after it began). Considering these people still fellowshipped with those who held to the larger canon this would seem to me to be evidence that they held this to be theologoumena (beliefs about which there is freedom to believe otherwise), not creed (Beliefs which must be held to be a member of the church).
Personally, I would probably agree with this. I would not teach that the Apocrypha are inspired, because I don’t think they are, but I would allow them to be read for spiritual benefit and I wouldn’t consider someone holding to them as scripture to be outside salvation however much I might think them wrong in doing so.
ken
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Not at all. I could be wrong and I ussually am. We all could be wrong. I infallably choose nothing.So you infallibly chose the Protestant tradition as wiser?
B
bob
Guest
II Paradox II:
And by what authority do you accept the rest?
And by what authority do you accept that the Deuterocanoicals are not inspired?
And by what authority do you accept the rest?
S
Shibboleth
Guest
By what authority do you accept that the RC has made an infallable decision on the issue? It comes down to you making the ultimate choice.And by what authority do you accept that the Deuterocanoicals are not inspired?
And by what authority do you accept the rest?
B
bob
Guest
That cannot be. You chose Protestanism over Catholism. If you claim that you can be wrong then perhaps you have chosen to take the wrong side? 50/50 chance of error?
Your views could be wrong, your sources could be wrong, how do you tell the truth from the errors?
S
Shibboleth
Guest
I get directions off of MAPQUEST ® from time to time. Very often the directions are not quite complete or I do not fully understand them. When it gets to a point where I must make a decision I must use the gifts of intelligence, logical deduction, and faith to help me make that decision. Because I am a fallible human being I could make the wrong decision but if I carefully and intelligently choose my path with the help of God then that chance of error is lessened.That cannot be. You chose Protestanism over Catholism. If you claim that you can be wrong then perhaps you have chosen to take the wrong side? 50/50 chance of error?
Your views could be wrong, your sources could be wrong, how do you tell the truth from the errors?
So no not 50/50
- Status