P
pablope
Guest
Authority in what sense? The Scripture is over the Church?
- Status
N
Novocastrian
Guest
In some senses yes, in some senses no. The Church has authority to recognise books as canonical, to have them read as part of liturgy, to interpret and teach them. She does not have authority to change them or to contradict them in matters of faith.
K
KP3243
Guest
So what are we going to do about John 6 then? Catholics believe heaven and earth become one at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb most Protestants believe it’s just a mere symbol. Are Catholics contradicting scripture or are Protestants and why is the Holy Spirit leading people to believe two different things?
P
pablope
Guest
Well…it is the Church that selected these variouis writings…and I am sure you believe this…change them in what way that the Church does not have authority to do?
And also…can you cite an example where the church has changed them or contradicted them on matters of faith?
K
KP3243
Guest
They cannot mean scripture is over the Church it’s not logically possible.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Most Protestants do not believe that the eucharist is a mere symbol. Even the likes of Calvin affirm a real, if spiritual presence.
If the Holy Spirit is the author of dissention when it comes to the exegesis of Scripture, then He must also be the same when it comes to divisions in the Church! Alternatively, instead of saying that either Church or Spirit are somehow lacking in full authority due to the action of the Spirit, we could acknowledge that man is sinful and fallible, and therefore prone to reject either/both.
K
KP3243
Guest
What authority do Protestants have to remove Old Testament books, Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles! Again, why would God create this confusion if it was coming from the Holy Spirit?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’ve responded to this elsewhere, but, in brief:
(1) Protestants do acknowledge the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon insofar as it has a place in the lectionary, and is useful for teaching faith and morals.
(2) Following St. Jerome, and the principle of consensus in the early Church and early Judaism, we tend to use only those 39 books acknowledged as divinely inspired by the Jews and early Christians alike when establishing doctrine. We err on the side of caution with regard to texts whose canonicity and authority were up for debate in the first few centuries of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
I would suggest that (1), following the principle lex orandi lex credendi, is probably more the more significant for the life and theology of the Church of England, of which I am a member.
K
KP3243
Guest
You obviously don’t have Fundamentalists and Baptists in your neck of the woods, I can’t tell you how many times I get accused of believing in cannibalism . Luther and Calvin also defended the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Immaculate conception, Catholics now get accused of Worshiping Mary and a get told Mary was just a vessel and a sinner like everyone else, why did they change their view on Mary?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’d suggest that the fundamentalists and Baptists in your neck of the woods have strayed from traditional Protestantism! You’ll find, I imagine, that the orthodox Lutherans and Anglicans on here will have theologies broadly similar to your own, and are friendly to Roman Catholics. Our disagreements with Rome are, in the grand scheme of things, minor.
I’m not aware of Luther and Calvin defending the Immaculate Conception, but I’m willing to be proven wrong on that one! Just reading the sheer amount that Luther and Calvin wrote is difficult enough!
K
KP3243
Guest
Early Judaism?? The Jewish cannon was changed in 90 AD Jesus had been dead and ascended to heaven sixty years earlier, Peter and Paul had been dead for almost 30, I will never accept that it was the cannon Jesus used. No one calling themselves a Christian for 1500 years accepted this either.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
There was no Jewish canon. Yavneh/Jamnia was a school, not a council. We don’t know for sure which books Jesus would have read as Scripture, but I agree that the early Church on the whole seems to have used the LXX. I don’t deny that at all. I simply say that when we’re making doctrine, it makes sense to be safe and use the canon recognised by all as uncontroversial.
R
rfournier103
Guest
The best answer I can give (having never been Protestant) regarding the tradition of Sola Scriptura, would be that it is the only solid, tangible guide that could govern/teach Christians if they were to reject The Church (the CATHOLIC/UNIVERSAL Church).
If one rejects the Church, it’s Traditions, it’s councils, and it’s leadership; all that’s left is Scripture.
K
KP3243
Guest
Martin Luther:
Mary the Mother of God
Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
“She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God … It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
Perpetual Virginity
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.
“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.”
The Immaculate Conception
Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:
“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…”
Assumption
Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.”
Honor to Mary
Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.
John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.
“Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”
“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.”
“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”
K
KP3243
Guest
Why do you assume we cannot know which books Jesus used the Apostles would have used the same ones and we know their disciples like Polycarp would have used the same scriptures as the Apostles who taught them. The Church was already in Rome in 90AD, the new Exodus had already taken place. They wouldn’t have used anything coming out of Palestine. There was a reason why the Church had to leave Jerusalem. I also find it more controversial that 500 years ago Christians decided not to accept some of these books as the Word of God when no Christian on earth had ever done this.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Novocastrian
In some senses yes, in some senses no. The Church has authority to recognise books as canonical, to have them read as part of liturgy, to interpret and teach them. She does not have authority to change them or to contradict them in matters of faith. **
As you say, the Church did have the authority to decide which books would be canonical. The Church adopted the books as canonical. The books did not adopt the Church. Having conferred canonical status on these books, the Church exercised an infallible choice. Do Protestants recognize that the choice of the New Testament books was infallibly correct?
If they do not believe an infallible choice was made by the 4th Century Council of Bishops that adopted these books, they must believe it possible that some of the books teach errors, or even that some of the books should be thrown out. I have never heard a Protestant take that view. It follows that Protestants have adopted the view that the bishops at the Council of were speaking infallibly when voiced their support for some books but opposition to others being included in the canon.
In some senses yes, in some senses no. The Church has authority to recognise books as canonical, to have them read as part of liturgy, to interpret and teach them. She does not have authority to change them or to contradict them in matters of faith. **
As you say, the Church did have the authority to decide which books would be canonical. The Church adopted the books as canonical. The books did not adopt the Church. Having conferred canonical status on these books, the Church exercised an infallible choice. Do Protestants recognize that the choice of the New Testament books was infallibly correct?
If they do not believe an infallible choice was made by the 4th Century Council of Bishops that adopted these books, they must believe it possible that some of the books teach errors, or even that some of the books should be thrown out. I have never heard a Protestant take that view. It follows that Protestants have adopted the view that the bishops at the Council of were speaking infallibly when voiced their support for some books but opposition to others being included in the canon.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t see how this is a response to what Novocastrian said.
C
Contarini
Guest
Sure it is. Scripture is the Word of God (as is Sacred Tradition). The Church recognizes and submits to the authority of the Word. It’s all in Dei Verbum
The unfortunate arguments of papal canon lawyers from the Reformation era are still alive and well, though they should have been buried with a stake through the heart centuries ago.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, he does, for the students. The Church confers no intrinsic authority on the books of Scripture. The Church recognizes the fact that these books are inspired by God and thus possess authority from God, and the Church tells us this. The Church has authority over her members, not over Scripture.
That’s a remarkably silly argument, and I continue to marvel at its popularity. All the books existed, and all the books were regarded as divinely inspired by some (probably most) Christians long before the fourth century. The question of the limits of the NT was not fully settled until the fourth century. But that’s quite different from the NT not existing.
The process of the Church “conferring authority” was not as clear-cut as you’re making it sound. People did not sit around until the fourth century saying “we don’t know what books are in the NT–who is going to tell us?” Christians spoke of various books as divinely inspired, and there were lists of canonical books which differed slightly from each other. Through this messy process, the Church was discerning which books were canonical. This discernment was, to all intents and purposes, complete by the end of the fourth century. At that point Christians knew more certainly than they had before which books were and were not in the NT canon.
I am not arguing that the authority of the Church is unnecessary. I’m arguing that the Church recognizes the authority that God has conferred on the books of Scripture by inspiring individual members of the Church to write them.
It’s astounding to me that some Catholics, such as yourself, seem determined to take one of the strongest arguments for Catholicism and knock it into a cocked hat by introducing this nonsense about the Church having authority over Scripture and the Bible not existing until the Church had determined the limits of the canon with finality.
Edwin
- Status