Berean Beacon "Thy Word is Truth":
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Thy_Word_Is_Truth.pdf
This is a document summarizing Catholic Catechism "contradictions" with Scripture. There are eight subjects. It is meant to be printed and handed out to Catholics to show them important issues and the Catholic Church's "false" teachings on them. Mr Bennett feels, I suppose, these are eight of the most significant "errors" of Catholicism. Many of his other documents bring up these issues and so by addressing these issues here I'll be providing refutation of many of the other documents on the Berean Beacon web site.
I'll demonstrate where the Berean Beacon is wrong in either Scriptural interpretation or in presenting his selective quotations of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
---
Topic: The Basis of Truth
This topic concerns "the Bible Alone" (Sola Scriptura) concept versus Scripture along with Tradition and Church Leadership. This is covered in my blog entry "Authentication of Scripture & the Significance of Tradition".
---
Topic: Salvation by Grace Alone
Mr Bennett is right. God's Grace alone is the reason for our salvation. But that is in the sense that without God's grace nothing else matters and we can't come to salvation without His grace. Ultimately, grace is the reason we are justified. While we are justified and adopted as heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven by His grace, it is our own, free will that we accept and remain in that state. We can choose to not accept it, or after accepting it, to give the gift back (by sinning gravely). God made us without consulting our will, but He will not save us against our will [I think Augustine said that]. But He always makes available to us the grace needed to become and remain His children. We only have to accept and cooperate with that grace (or those graces).
There are actually two distinctions of grace - Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace (see
http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp). Sanctifying grace provides the state of sonship in God (justification). Actual grace is a help to act (in doing God's will) to grow spiritually. Apparently, non-Catholics generally only think of grace in the sense of Sanctifying grace.
Mr Bennett cites three quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church :
Paragraph 2021: this one describes actual grace, not sanctifying grace, and so is not erroneous as Mr Bennett implies it is.
Paragraph 1129: 'Sacramental grace'... the Sacraments are required because they were instituted by Christ Himself... baptism imparts sanctifying grace ("the washing of regeneration"), and is the sign of the new covenant; confirmation imparts actual grace to become more mature spiritually; the holy Eucharist imparts actual grace; confession/reconciliation imparts sanctifying grace when mortal sins are forgiven, which returns a sinner to the family (re-justifies him). But it must be remembered: faith comes first...sacraments received without true faith are hollow, useless rituals and it is a sin in itself to do do. (And if a repentant sinner dies without actually receiving a particular sacrament, they are ok because God sees the heart and knows he wanted to (or would, if he understood the purpose and the power of the sacraments.))
paragraph 1493: the sacramental system as instituted by Christ includes a means for reuniting repentant sinners with the family of God. The sacrament of Reconciliation is the means by which justification is restored, in the case of mortal sin. In the case of non-mortal (venial) sin, actual grace is imparted for the penitant to grow spiritually. We are commanded in Scripture to confess our sins to a priest. Refer to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html.
Catholic Encyclopedia on Sanctifying Grace...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
And Actual Grace...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm
And Sacraments...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm
Scripture references to Justification and Salvation...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html
Scripture references to the sacraments, menu on the left...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
the Sacraments...
http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp
---
Topic: Faith is God-Given and Sustained
Faith is a gift indeed, a gift which originates from God, but it must be accepted and exercised to do any good.
"Faith is the Gift of God and comes by the Word of God"... which comes to the world through the church He established ("Mother Church"), not merely by paper and ink. A book alone can't go find people to evangelize. Christ founded the Church of the New Covenant to bring His full gospel to the entire world.
(Scott Hahn's lectures on salvation history give an understanding of the origin and purpose and power of the Church...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/Mod2.html)
Catechism Paragraph 168, 169, 181...
These paragraphs are in perfect accord with Scripture when one considers that Christ began His Church foundation (gathering the Apostles) then preached the Gospel. The Church came first and then the Word was spread by that Church. The Church co-creates children of God (by being the delivery mechanism of the Gospel), and is the "Bride of Christ", hence can be called "Mother" by us Christians. It's understandable that non-Catholics reject this concept because they already reject the concept of an organized heirarchical body being the visible aspect of the Church.
Mr Bennett doesn't show these paragraphs in his tract:
161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained
justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"43
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be "working through charity [love]," abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.46
Here's more from the catechism on faith...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#I
---
Topic: Christ's Sufficient Finished Sacrifice
Mr Bennett is saying here that the Catholic Church does not teach that "Christ’s Sacrifice was His alone and once offered". He is wrong. The proper context will show the Catechism quotes to be accurate and Scriptural.
The Catholic Church does teach that "Christ’s Sacrifice was His alone and once offered".
His crucifixion happened once in this space-time continuum and ONLY HIS sacrifice paid the price for original sin and all of our personal sins. Every sin in the universe is paid for... in principle. In a past event "He had by Himself purged our sins" in principle, but not yet in application in every case. As long as this world exists payment will continue to be applied on a case-by-case basis every time a sinner asks forgiveness contritely and sincerely.
Mr Bennett cites the Catechism to show apparent conflict with Scripture:
Paragraph 1367...
In the same sense that God sees everything from all times and places in this universe at "once" (because He made it and is not constrained within it), His sacrifice (the victim being God Incarnate) is available at every point in space-time. The Mass is the renewal event of the New Covenant. This renewal event was begun with the Last Supper, when Christ instituted the New Covenant memorial feast. This memorial feast is the (New Covenant) fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant Passover feast. In the accounts of the Last Supper you will not find a baby sheep (which was required by the Law). This is because Jesus is the Lamb of God and gave Himself to be the sacrificial Passover Lamb. In the Old Covenant Passover feast, the family was required to eat the lamb. Just so, in the New Covenant Passover feast. Jesus gives His flesh and blood to us, in an unbloody manner in the appearance of bread and wine, to eat and drink in order to reap the blessings of obedience to God. This is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which manifests, makes present in the here and now, that sacrificial lamb, Jesus Christ, in that once-for-all-time-and-place sacrifice of the Cross.
Paragraph 1368...
The Church's teaching here is one of a certain context. It is not implying "the visible
corporate organization that is the Catholic Church, with all her canon laws and ritualism, is
sacrificed". Instead, in a certain context, the Church is the body of Christ. Therefore, if
Christ is sacrificed, the Church is sacrificed (in that sense).
Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on this idea...
[
This truth, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, all its members being guided and directed by Christ the head, is set forth by St. Paul in various passages, more especially in Ephesians 4:4-13 (cf. John 15:5-8). The doctrine may be summarized as follows:
* The members of the Church are bound together by a supernatural life communicated to them by Christ through the sacraments (John 15:5). Christ is the centre and source of life to Whom all are united, and Who endows each one with gifts fitting him for his position in the body (John 15:7-12). These graces, through which each is equipped for his work, form it into an organized whole, whose parts are knit together as though by a system of ligaments and joints (John 15:16; Colossians 2:19).
* Through them, too, the Church has its growth and increase, growing in extension as it
spreads through the world, and intensively as the individual Christian develops in himself the likeness of Christ (John 15:13-15).
* In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ
(Ephesians 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12).
* This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17).
]
For more info...
Summary of Scripture related to the eucharist...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
Scott Hahn on the Eucharist...
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc3.htm
Eucharist, Holy Meal...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html
The application of Christ's sacrifice...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pg.html
---
Topic: God, the only All Holy One
Mr. Bennett is mis-interpreting the Catechism paragraph 2030. It is not saying Mary is the source of holiness.
God is the source of all holiness. No one else. But He does give such abundant grace to some individuals who accept and cooperate with it that that person is then considered holy. But Catholicism does not teach that they are holy of their own power. Mary lived a holy life by virtue of God's grace in her. Now she is in Heaven with God. She is entirely holy indeed. She is the "example of holiness" referred to in the Catechism paragraph 2030. This paragraph is saying we can see the "source of holiness" (God) operating in the all-holy Virgin Mary, not that Mary herself is the source.
See also "Topic: Communion with the Dead" below.
---
Topic: One Mediator
The Catholic Church does not teach that there is more than one (person-access) way into Heaven.
Mary is considered a "Mediatrix". But not independantly, or of her own power (of which she has none). Her mediation is based on her relationship with the one true mediator (Jesus) and entirely depends upon the existance of that one true mediator. She mediated in the sense that physically through her the one true mediator, Jesus, came into the world. (In that sense she is also a co-creator of God incarnate, as all parents are co-creators of life.) And she presently mediates in the sense that we can ask her to pray for us. She does nothing, she can do nothing, separately from God's grace but according to Scripture she is "full of grace". She can mediate for us by petitioning her son for our desires. (Another word for this description of her is "intercessor". We can all intercede for someone else by praying for them.) Of course, we also ask Jesus directly for our desires. We just supplement that with asking our fellow Christians to pray for us, which includes Christians in heaven, especially the Mother of God (incarnate).
Here's a Bible-study showing her significance in God's salvation plan...
"Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God":
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/holy_queen_the_mother_of_god_in_the_word_of_god
See also "Topic: Communion with the Dead" below.
---
Topic: Idolatry
This subject I discussed in the blog entry "Berean Beacon on "Idolatry in the Church"".
---
Topic: Communion with the Dead
Mr Bennett's Scripture quotes refer to evil spirits whereas the Catechism is referring to
Christians in Heaven. Scripture supports Communion with the Dead [in Christ].
In praying to the souls in heaven we are only asking them to pray for us, not seeking knowledge or favors of their own power (which would amount to worshipping them).
Deut 18:10-11 refers to the really dead... the evil spirits... for divining information or
favors. Likewise Leviticus 20:6-7.
What is prayer? Usually, the non-Catholic considers prayer in and of itself to be a form of worship or adoration. Actually, there are different kinds of prayer such as petitional prayer ("God, please heal my mother"), worshiping prayer ("Father in Heaven, you are the source of all goodness"), contemplative prayer (we open our mind and soul to the Spirit as we contemplate some mystery of God or Scripture).
When we pray to someone in heaven, we are using petitional prayer, asking them to pray for us. We are not seeking favors of their own power (they have none their own) or trying to glean information from a supernatural source (as proscribed in the OT, ie King Saul and the sorceress). It is no different than when I ask a fellow Christian here on Earth to pray for me. There are some instances where someone might pray to the saints in heaven to the exclusion of praying to and worshiping God and this is indeed wrong and they should quit
praying to the saints entirely until they get their spiritual priorities back in order.
BTW, Catholics are not commanded to pray to the saints or Mary under pain of damnation. It is not a "requirement" or dogmatic practice. Just a highly beneficial action. "The Communion of Saints" is dogma, however, and certain aspects of Mary are dogmatic and all Catholics are required to believe those things, so I guess we are required to honor her and the saints to that extent. (And it is a pleasure to do so when we understand the whole matter.)
Mary is a particular favorite for us earth-bound Christians to pray to because she is the mother of Jesus. She was the first Christian in history. We honor (not worship/adore)
her as Jesus honors his mother. He is pleased when we honor her. We only emulate Jesus when we honor her and we are commanded to emulate Jesus. We ask her to pray for us, we do not worship her. Anyone who prays to Mary and the saints in heaven must be aware to limit it to petitional prayer and perhaps thanking them for cooperating with God's grace and His plan. When we honor them we only honor God's work, not their own. But we must never worship (adore) them, of course. We must keep them in perspective, that they are our fellow creatures of God, not divine beings.
Mary, being a unique person of history and due to her willing role, has a number of descriptive titles. These titles do not amount to worship. They do honor her, though. They acknowledge the work of God in salvation history and her cooperation with His grace and His plan. These titles are Scriptural, even if not explicitly so.
Mother of God: She is not the mother of God (the Father) or God (the Holy Spirit). But by virtue of conceiving, gestating and birthing God incarnate (God the Son) she is the mother of God.
Queen of Heaven: In the Davidic dynastic tradition (as with most ancient near-eastern dynasties) the queen of the kingdom was the king's mother, one reason being kings had multiple wives. Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is the presently and forevermore enthroned King of Heaven. Therefore she is the Queen of Heaven. This doesn't mean that we attribute to her divine power or authority, just that she is honored by God for her cooperation with His grace and His salvation plan.
Mother of all Christians: In different senses she is mother, daughter, sister to Jesus. Mother by birthing Him, daughter because she is an adopted child of God and Jesus is God, sister in that she is a child of God and Jesus is the (only begotten) son of God. To us Christians she is both mother and sister. Sister in that she is a fellow adopted sibling and mother in that since she is the mother of God (the son) and we are adoptive children of God (hence Jesus is our brother in that sense) she is then our adoptive mother. Her motherhood to us was stated by Jesus Himself, from the cross. Mary and John were with Him. He said to her "behold, your son" and to him "behold, your mother". John was referred to as the one He loved. Jesus loves all of His disciples, so in this scene John represents all Christians. Of course, an additional meaning of this scene is Jesus leaving His mother in the care of His cousin, since He would be gone soon. These interpretations aren't contradictory but merely two levels of meaning.
Co-Redemptrix: This title is the most offensive to those who mis-understand all this Mary-honoring. I agree, on the surface this seems to be elevating Mary to Godhood. But in truth the proper context renders this title accurately descriptive. Parents are co-creators with God of human life. This doesn't mean parents have divine powers, but that they participated with God in the creation of a human being. Their biological selves contributed the physical stuff while God infused a soul into the new person. In similar context, Mary is Co-Redemptrix. Not that she has divine powers of her own or that we should worship her, but she willingly cooperated with God and provided the womb and half the chromosomes for God Incarnate, the Redeemer, to come into the world. It is only in that context that she helped redeem us and is considered Co-Redemptrix and we merely honor her with those titles, not worship her.
Mediatrix of All Graces: Firstly, Jesus, no one else, is the Source of All Graces. Mary mediated in that she was the human mother who provided the womb for the Incarnation to happen, bringing all the graces from God into the world. This title does not try to imply Mary has divine power of her own, just that we can ask her to ask her son to give us graces.
Ark of the (New) Covenant: The Ark of the (Mosaic) Covenant contained three things: the Word of God (10 Commandments), a jar of food (manna) and the rod of Aaron (representing priesthood). The Ark of the (New) Covenant contained the same three things all in one person: The Word of God (incarnate), food that is His Body, a priest (Christ is the High Priest). Therefore, Mary herself is the Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was a holy thing by virtue of its contents. Just so, Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.
Born without Sin ("The Immaculate Conception"): The old Ark of the Covenant was a holy thing by virtue of it's holy contents. Accordingly, the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary, is considered to be born free of the stain of Original Sin by virtue of being the container of the New Covenant Word, Food and Priest. She was retroactively saved from sin because God foresaw her "Yes" to Him. The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the faith.
These next items are not titles but descriptions to which non-Catholics object.
Perpetual Virgin: You might think "A wife who never had sex with her husband??? Impossible!!" But remember, the Holy Family was no ordinary family and is unique in history. It actually wasn't that rare of a thing in that time and place and religion for a married couple to abstain from sexual intercourse. A holy man of Judaism might want to remain "pure" in that respect. It is logically plausible, that Joseph and Mary had a chaste marriage, and not contra-scriptural. Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, Joseph would have had the respect due to such a Holy thing.
Assumed into Heaven Bodily: Non-Catholics object to this on the basis that she was just like any other creature of God, like you and me, just blessed a little more than us. However, she is indeed a special creature. The most special creature ever made, in fact. It's easy to accept this idea, that Jesus brought her up to heaven bodily when her time on earth was done. After all, God assumed a few other righteous creatures in OT times, why not His favorite creature of all? Mary's Assumption is a dogma of the faith. (When you read Revelation you find that the ark of the Old Covenant is in Heaven, likewise the ark of the New Covenant.)
Here are links showing the Scriptural and historical support of these things...
Catholic Encyclopedia on the Communion of Saints...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm
Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God (an online Bible study):
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/holy_queen_the_mother_of_god_in_the_word_of_god
Scott Hahn on Mary in Scripture...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/m.html
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html
And on saints in Heaven...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/sts.html
Monday, November 15, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Authentication of Scripture & the Significance of Tradition
Berean Beacon's article on Sola Scriptura...
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Sola_Scriptura_early_church.pdf
( And for more Pro-Sola-Scriptura, here's a chapter from a book by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr...
http://www.mbrem123.com/bible/sufficn.php )
Here's my take on the subject (just a jumble of thoughts, not a formal essay...):
---
Some non-Catholics feel that the Catholic Church and its Tradition get in the way of a
relationship with God and with understanding Scripture. Conversly, Tradition does not inhibit us or render Scripture redundant or superfluous. Because Scripture is the very words of our Father (translated), it is a personal letter written to each of us individually as well as to all of us collectively. Scripture is our Daddy's very own writing. However, we must get help understanding it sometimes.
Here's an analogy:
A 19 year old boy's father died when the boy was just a toddler. The father, having a terminal illness, had written a long letter for his child to have and to read when he was old enough. The boy cherished the letter as he grew up, it being Dad's own writing written especially for the boy. (This fact he learned from his mother.) Some things in the letter were not fully understandable to the boy, so he would ask his mom about it. Mom, having known Dad personally and intimately could easily elucidate for the boy. Her presence and her knowledge of Dad did not render Dad's letter superfluous, nor did Mom get in the way between the boy and his father's message, but actually enhanced the father-son relationship (as it were) and gave it the fullest meaning possible for the boy.
---
Some Christians have great faith that the Bible alone is the sole medium of transmission of everything God wants us to know concerning our life in Him. Catholics believe that His Word is not necessarily bound up in a volume of inspired writings. While the written Word is holy and true, it was never meant to be the primary means of spreading the teachings of Jesus. He established the Church of the New Covenant (in visible, heirarchical form as well as spiritual association) in order to lead people to all truth.
Imagine if all the Bibles in the world disappeared... the full Gospel would still get to the world because Jesus' Church possesses it and would preach it. However, if the evangelizing/teaching Church disappeared from the earth and the Bible was still here, folks could read it but there'd likely be as many interpretations as there are people. Without the teaching authority of Jesus' Church, the Bible is limited (due to the interpretational limitations or prejudices of the reader) in it's capability to transmit the full Gospel faithfully. Look at the real world... since the popularization of "The Bible Alone" concept, in the 1500's, Christianity has divided into thousands of sects, each claiming to have the Spirit-lead correct interpretation, yet many having diametrically opposing interpretations. They can all be wrong, but they cannot all be right!
---
While the fact that the Bible is the inspired written Word of God is independant of people's opinion of it, we accept the fact of its inspiration because of an extra-scriptural authority that tells us so: Tradition. Not a human tradition but Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition. God has chosen not to give everyone a personal revelation. He left behind humans to preach His Word. The Word of God is composed of all the divine truths that the Apostles taught. Upon the death of the last Apostle, the Gospel had been completely revealed. (Since then there have been no new public revelations from God.) This is the "deposit of faith" which is handed down to us from the Apostles by the legitimate teaching authority of the Church built on the foundation of those selfsame Apostles.
---
Tradition tells us, and we accept it, that the NT writings are authored by God and Paul, or God and Peter, or God and Matthew, etc.
---
"Bible Christians" and other non-Catholic (Protestant) Christians generally downplay or despise "tradition", especially as it relates to Scripture. Concerning man-originating tradition, the Catholic can agree. But there is something called "Sacred" or "Apostolic" tradition (which the Catholic would refer to concisely as "Tradition", capital T) which the Catholic sees as all the Christic/Apostolic teachings which didn't come to be explicitly part of the canon of Scripture (ie due to the Apostle never writing it out) but is nonetheless part of what the Apostles preached and is divine Truth.
---
Q: How come self-proclaimed "Bible Christians" don't use the whole Bible? A: Because the tradition that guides them tells them the "extra" seven books don't belong in the canon of Scripture. The tradition Catholics follow tells Catholics those seven books do belong.
---
Tradition and the canon of Scripture are tightly related. New Testament Scripture was Tradition (oral) before it was written down, thus becoming part of the written word of God.
---
God's Word is not limited to texts found in the Bible...
The Word also became flesh. The Spirit of the Word indwels the Apostolic Tradition as well as Scripture. Just as the Spirit ensured (through the Church He established) the Bible (the written Word) is handed down through time and space with necessary accuracy, so teachings of Tradition (the oral Word) are handed down to us with the same fidelity.
---
The Bible explicitly or implicitly describes the divine truths the Apostles taught. Some doctrines don't spring forth blatantly from Scripture (such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary), but Sacred Tradition, the non-written Word of God, describes such doctrines and they are logically inferrable from Scripture. While the Apostles may not have written down these things, their successors have. The words the successors wrote are not considered inspired, but what they learned from the Apostles can be considered infallible.
---
Without Tradition, none of us would have the bible as we know it. Traditional doctrine was a benchmark test of a writing's canon-icity when the Church was looking to close the Canon of Scripture. (Everyone thereafter could then know without doubt what writings they should consider inspired and what writings to not consider inspired.) Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the church there would be many many different compilations of texts considered "Scripture", based on people's own private judgements. In the past, some fellows have shunned Tradition and have subtracted or added to what is considered Scripture: Martin Luther is one, another is Joseph Smith. Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church Christ established, neither of these men can be berated for such actions.
---
Today we accept the inspired nature of Scripture firstly because our tradition ingrained it into us (we who were raised Christian were indoctrinated into it, so we are inclined to believe it). What Christian home do you know of where they don't tell their kids the Bible is the inspired word of God? Secondly we believe its inspiration because it does support it's own divine origin, even if it logically cannot authenticate itself.
---
Logically, a document cannot authenticate itself. (For example, I need a notary public to authenticate some of my legal documents, despite my own signature implying their authenticity.) Therefore, the Bible, being a document, logically cannot authenticate itself. Authenticity is confirmed by the teaching authority of the Church Christ founded to promulgate His Word.
(
Even Jesus could not authenticate Himself...
In John 5:31... "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. 32 But there is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that the testimony he gives on my behalf is true."
Just so, one cannot glorify oneself, as in John 8:54... "Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.'"
In John 5:36-39 He describes His authentication... "But I have testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 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 the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf."
So, Jesus was authenticated by His signs (miracles), the Father and the OT Scriptures, not by Himself. (And His authentication is one reason that only Christianity can be the one true religion.)
In this light, Scripture is authenticated not by itself, but by the Church He built on the foundation of the Apostles.
)
---
How the bible-reader interprets Scripture is based on tradition of some kind. Who among us can say that we are uninfluenced in our interpretation of Scripture? That we use Scripture alone to interpret Scripture? Indeed, in order to properly interpret Scripture accurately we NEED (unless God chooses to directly illuminate us) extra-Biblical sources (teachers, pastors, concordances, etc). Scripture alone doesn't give us the full context of itself. But by studying the ancient cultures and languages and societies, etc (necessarily from extra-biblical sources), along with Scripture, we get the proper context in which to interpret Scripture.
---
Some interpretations are based on Apostolic Tradition, other interpretations are influenced by other, newer traditions. The various heresies throughout history were deviations from Apostolic Tradition (and Scripture) and that Tradition, along with Scripture, was used to disprove heresy. Even the very Scriptures we all hold so dear became the Bible as we know it due to Tradition. (Check out AIG's article on the Canon http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/why-sixty-six. Under 'What Made a Book "Scripture"?' are 5 points, some of which ultimately rely on Tradition in order to answer a particular question concerning a given writing. I'm on a tangent here, but the article also propounds that while Jesus and the Apostles did use the Septuagint, the apocryphal writings were not a part of the version they used. That's a new idea to me. Usually non-Catholics just deny they used the Septuagint. Here's a Catholic view on the issue: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM)
---
How can one tell if the tradition of interpretation they follow is what the Apostles taught? Firstly, Pray. Nextly, look for doctrinal longevity and consistency through time and space. Take a hard look at history in general (we need to know the world in which the family and the Word of God have dwelt) and the post-Apostolic Christian writings ("Church Fathers") in particular. Study Scripture, considering the context in terms of language, literary sense, time period, society, and place.
---
I've found in my research that it is the Catholic Tradition which extends back to, and has not changed (though depth of understanding has grown) since, Apostolic times and is throughout the world. (That is why it quickly came to be called the "Universal Church"... it is everywhere and everywhen "One Faith". By the beginning of the 2nd century the term "catholic" was already in common use.) Other traditions are not as old. From the 300's to the 1500's this one, universal, Christian Church considered the same 73 writings to be Scripture. (Slightly different enumeration of the writings was used early on). And that one Christian Church interpreted Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition. Then Luther and Calvin and Zwingly decided their own private judgment to be superior to Apostolic Tradition, and eliminated or altered parts of Scripture to suit their own doctrines (notably "sola fide" and "sola scriptura").
---
Sola Scriptura has been practiced by some since the beginning of Christianity... most notably by Arius and Nestorius and long before the "Reformers". Their faith in their own private judgement in interpretation led them astray from sound doctrine, and their preaching of those errors caused other souls to be led astray from Truth. Refer to http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm.
---
With Scripture alone, a person can conclude lots of untrue things through their misinterpretation of it. The heresies of the past arose when individuals departed from the Apostolic Tradition in their Scriptural interpretations.
---
Non-Catholics typically don't realize their debt to the Catholic Church... Besides giving us the Canon of Scripture (definitively, authoritatively listing its contents for us and preserving it through persecution and barbarian invasions and the "dark ages"), it was the Catholic Church who preserved the core doctrines of Christianity through the ages (primarily, the three-person nature of God). Most Christians either don't know or conveniently ignore the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved, despite significant heretical movements (especially Arianism), only due to the efforts of the Catholic theologians and leadership. The Trinity doctrine is professed by all true Christians, yet few of them realize or give thanks to the Catholic Church for defending and preserving it. Of course, ultimately, the thanks belong to the Holy Spirit who guided the Christian leaders (specifically the pope) in preserving the doctrine. As Christ said, the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church and the Arian Heresy event is one demonstration of that. Arianism very nearly displaced the true doctrine of the Trinity but the pope stood firm (even against a majority of the bishops) by the grace of God.
---
Anti-Catholics today claim the early Christian Church was a "Bible Church" (no Traditions or traditions being followed) and there was no large-scale structured, hierarchical, corporate organization... only a spiritual-associative relationship... That the Catholic Church was a later invention and the papacy began with Constantine installing the first pope. But history contradicts that position...
In the first several centuries of Christianity there arose a number of heretical movements. (summary at http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp) Sometimes clergy, other times laymen led them. Monophysitism, monothelitism, Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, Nerstorianism, et al. These movements of flawed doctrine could happen when a guy put his own private interpretation of Scripture as superior to that of the Christian leaders (collectively known as the magisterium & pope) guided by Apostolic Tradition. These heresies were successfully combated ONLY because of the existance of a structured, heirarchical, corporate organization: The One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, which is to say the Catholic Church. The Christians of the day recognized councils of the bishops and the pope as the authority of the Christian Faith System. No other organization as such was in existance. Without an organization having authority and international jurisdiction such heresies could not be countered... There would be no authority to declare which doctrine is true and which is false. (The New Testament canon didn't exist yet, though there was a general idea of the writings people felt to be inspired... but it wasn't official, so some could use uninspired writings as inspired...)
---
Extract from http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CATHEVID.HTM ...
1. The Visible Church
The idea of a visible church is not meant to exclude
spirituality and place stress only on the organization: but
given spiritual unity, then a visible organization follows as
its embodiment and safeguard.
A common opinion, though necessary, is not sufficient:
Shakespeare lovers are not a visible body: the Shakespeare
Society is. The two further things necessary are:
(a) A central authority.
(b) Demarcation of function among properly constituted officials.
Catholicism has these things and boasts of them:
Protestantism has not and boasts of their absence, insisting
that a common opinion (and this of the vaguest sort) is
sufficient to constitute a church.
The question is, did Christ simply sow ideas, or did He also
establish a society to guard and spread them?
---
More info...
What the Vatican has said... Dei Verbum (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION)...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
The Bible and the Church: Both or Neither
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/bbl.html
Summary of Scripture and Church Fathers on the issue...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Summary of Scripture on Oral Tradition...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
The Two Canons: Scripture and Tradition
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM
On the Task of Interpreting Scripture...
http://209.61.179.205/documents/scripture/On_the_Task.pdf
Sola Scriptura in the early Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm
Private Exegesis apart from Tradition and Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/private.htm
Apostolic Succession
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm
Where We Got the Bible
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Sola_Scriptura_early_church.pdf
( And for more Pro-Sola-Scriptura, here's a chapter from a book by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr...
http://www.mbrem123.com/bible/sufficn.php )
Here's my take on the subject (just a jumble of thoughts, not a formal essay...):
---
Some non-Catholics feel that the Catholic Church and its Tradition get in the way of a
relationship with God and with understanding Scripture. Conversly, Tradition does not inhibit us or render Scripture redundant or superfluous. Because Scripture is the very words of our Father (translated), it is a personal letter written to each of us individually as well as to all of us collectively. Scripture is our Daddy's very own writing. However, we must get help understanding it sometimes.
Here's an analogy:
A 19 year old boy's father died when the boy was just a toddler. The father, having a terminal illness, had written a long letter for his child to have and to read when he was old enough. The boy cherished the letter as he grew up, it being Dad's own writing written especially for the boy. (This fact he learned from his mother.) Some things in the letter were not fully understandable to the boy, so he would ask his mom about it. Mom, having known Dad personally and intimately could easily elucidate for the boy. Her presence and her knowledge of Dad did not render Dad's letter superfluous, nor did Mom get in the way between the boy and his father's message, but actually enhanced the father-son relationship (as it were) and gave it the fullest meaning possible for the boy.
---
Some Christians have great faith that the Bible alone is the sole medium of transmission of everything God wants us to know concerning our life in Him. Catholics believe that His Word is not necessarily bound up in a volume of inspired writings. While the written Word is holy and true, it was never meant to be the primary means of spreading the teachings of Jesus. He established the Church of the New Covenant (in visible, heirarchical form as well as spiritual association) in order to lead people to all truth.
Imagine if all the Bibles in the world disappeared... the full Gospel would still get to the world because Jesus' Church possesses it and would preach it. However, if the evangelizing/teaching Church disappeared from the earth and the Bible was still here, folks could read it but there'd likely be as many interpretations as there are people. Without the teaching authority of Jesus' Church, the Bible is limited (due to the interpretational limitations or prejudices of the reader) in it's capability to transmit the full Gospel faithfully. Look at the real world... since the popularization of "The Bible Alone" concept, in the 1500's, Christianity has divided into thousands of sects, each claiming to have the Spirit-lead correct interpretation, yet many having diametrically opposing interpretations. They can all be wrong, but they cannot all be right!
---
While the fact that the Bible is the inspired written Word of God is independant of people's opinion of it, we accept the fact of its inspiration because of an extra-scriptural authority that tells us so: Tradition. Not a human tradition but Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition. God has chosen not to give everyone a personal revelation. He left behind humans to preach His Word. The Word of God is composed of all the divine truths that the Apostles taught. Upon the death of the last Apostle, the Gospel had been completely revealed. (Since then there have been no new public revelations from God.) This is the "deposit of faith" which is handed down to us from the Apostles by the legitimate teaching authority of the Church built on the foundation of those selfsame Apostles.
---
Tradition tells us, and we accept it, that the NT writings are authored by God and Paul, or God and Peter, or God and Matthew, etc.
---
"Bible Christians" and other non-Catholic (Protestant) Christians generally downplay or despise "tradition", especially as it relates to Scripture. Concerning man-originating tradition, the Catholic can agree. But there is something called "Sacred" or "Apostolic" tradition (which the Catholic would refer to concisely as "Tradition", capital T) which the Catholic sees as all the Christic/Apostolic teachings which didn't come to be explicitly part of the canon of Scripture (ie due to the Apostle never writing it out) but is nonetheless part of what the Apostles preached and is divine Truth.
---
Q: How come self-proclaimed "Bible Christians" don't use the whole Bible? A: Because the tradition that guides them tells them the "extra" seven books don't belong in the canon of Scripture. The tradition Catholics follow tells Catholics those seven books do belong.
---
Tradition and the canon of Scripture are tightly related. New Testament Scripture was Tradition (oral) before it was written down, thus becoming part of the written word of God.
---
God's Word is not limited to texts found in the Bible...
The Word also became flesh. The Spirit of the Word indwels the Apostolic Tradition as well as Scripture. Just as the Spirit ensured (through the Church He established) the Bible (the written Word) is handed down through time and space with necessary accuracy, so teachings of Tradition (the oral Word) are handed down to us with the same fidelity.
---
The Bible explicitly or implicitly describes the divine truths the Apostles taught. Some doctrines don't spring forth blatantly from Scripture (such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary), but Sacred Tradition, the non-written Word of God, describes such doctrines and they are logically inferrable from Scripture. While the Apostles may not have written down these things, their successors have. The words the successors wrote are not considered inspired, but what they learned from the Apostles can be considered infallible.
---
Without Tradition, none of us would have the bible as we know it. Traditional doctrine was a benchmark test of a writing's canon-icity when the Church was looking to close the Canon of Scripture. (Everyone thereafter could then know without doubt what writings they should consider inspired and what writings to not consider inspired.) Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the church there would be many many different compilations of texts considered "Scripture", based on people's own private judgements. In the past, some fellows have shunned Tradition and have subtracted or added to what is considered Scripture: Martin Luther is one, another is Joseph Smith. Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church Christ established, neither of these men can be berated for such actions.
---
Today we accept the inspired nature of Scripture firstly because our tradition ingrained it into us (we who were raised Christian were indoctrinated into it, so we are inclined to believe it). What Christian home do you know of where they don't tell their kids the Bible is the inspired word of God? Secondly we believe its inspiration because it does support it's own divine origin, even if it logically cannot authenticate itself.
---
Logically, a document cannot authenticate itself. (For example, I need a notary public to authenticate some of my legal documents, despite my own signature implying their authenticity.) Therefore, the Bible, being a document, logically cannot authenticate itself. Authenticity is confirmed by the teaching authority of the Church Christ founded to promulgate His Word.
(
Even Jesus could not authenticate Himself...
In John 5:31... "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. 32 But there is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that the testimony he gives on my behalf is true."
Just so, one cannot glorify oneself, as in John 8:54... "Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.'"
In John 5:36-39 He describes His authentication... "But I have testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 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 the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf."
So, Jesus was authenticated by His signs (miracles), the Father and the OT Scriptures, not by Himself. (And His authentication is one reason that only Christianity can be the one true religion.)
In this light, Scripture is authenticated not by itself, but by the Church He built on the foundation of the Apostles.
)
---
How the bible-reader interprets Scripture is based on tradition of some kind. Who among us can say that we are uninfluenced in our interpretation of Scripture? That we use Scripture alone to interpret Scripture? Indeed, in order to properly interpret Scripture accurately we NEED (unless God chooses to directly illuminate us) extra-Biblical sources (teachers, pastors, concordances, etc). Scripture alone doesn't give us the full context of itself. But by studying the ancient cultures and languages and societies, etc (necessarily from extra-biblical sources), along with Scripture, we get the proper context in which to interpret Scripture.
---
Some interpretations are based on Apostolic Tradition, other interpretations are influenced by other, newer traditions. The various heresies throughout history were deviations from Apostolic Tradition (and Scripture) and that Tradition, along with Scripture, was used to disprove heresy. Even the very Scriptures we all hold so dear became the Bible as we know it due to Tradition. (Check out AIG's article on the Canon http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/why-sixty-six. Under 'What Made a Book "Scripture"?' are 5 points, some of which ultimately rely on Tradition in order to answer a particular question concerning a given writing. I'm on a tangent here, but the article also propounds that while Jesus and the Apostles did use the Septuagint, the apocryphal writings were not a part of the version they used. That's a new idea to me. Usually non-Catholics just deny they used the Septuagint. Here's a Catholic view on the issue: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM)
---
How can one tell if the tradition of interpretation they follow is what the Apostles taught? Firstly, Pray. Nextly, look for doctrinal longevity and consistency through time and space. Take a hard look at history in general (we need to know the world in which the family and the Word of God have dwelt) and the post-Apostolic Christian writings ("Church Fathers") in particular. Study Scripture, considering the context in terms of language, literary sense, time period, society, and place.
---
I've found in my research that it is the Catholic Tradition which extends back to, and has not changed (though depth of understanding has grown) since, Apostolic times and is throughout the world. (That is why it quickly came to be called the "Universal Church"... it is everywhere and everywhen "One Faith". By the beginning of the 2nd century the term "catholic" was already in common use.) Other traditions are not as old. From the 300's to the 1500's this one, universal, Christian Church considered the same 73 writings to be Scripture. (Slightly different enumeration of the writings was used early on). And that one Christian Church interpreted Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition. Then Luther and Calvin and Zwingly decided their own private judgment to be superior to Apostolic Tradition, and eliminated or altered parts of Scripture to suit their own doctrines (notably "sola fide" and "sola scriptura").
---
Sola Scriptura has been practiced by some since the beginning of Christianity... most notably by Arius and Nestorius and long before the "Reformers". Their faith in their own private judgement in interpretation led them astray from sound doctrine, and their preaching of those errors caused other souls to be led astray from Truth. Refer to http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm.
---
With Scripture alone, a person can conclude lots of untrue things through their misinterpretation of it. The heresies of the past arose when individuals departed from the Apostolic Tradition in their Scriptural interpretations.
---
Non-Catholics typically don't realize their debt to the Catholic Church... Besides giving us the Canon of Scripture (definitively, authoritatively listing its contents for us and preserving it through persecution and barbarian invasions and the "dark ages"), it was the Catholic Church who preserved the core doctrines of Christianity through the ages (primarily, the three-person nature of God). Most Christians either don't know or conveniently ignore the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved, despite significant heretical movements (especially Arianism), only due to the efforts of the Catholic theologians and leadership. The Trinity doctrine is professed by all true Christians, yet few of them realize or give thanks to the Catholic Church for defending and preserving it. Of course, ultimately, the thanks belong to the Holy Spirit who guided the Christian leaders (specifically the pope) in preserving the doctrine. As Christ said, the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church and the Arian Heresy event is one demonstration of that. Arianism very nearly displaced the true doctrine of the Trinity but the pope stood firm (even against a majority of the bishops) by the grace of God.
---
Anti-Catholics today claim the early Christian Church was a "Bible Church" (no Traditions or traditions being followed) and there was no large-scale structured, hierarchical, corporate organization... only a spiritual-associative relationship... That the Catholic Church was a later invention and the papacy began with Constantine installing the first pope. But history contradicts that position...
In the first several centuries of Christianity there arose a number of heretical movements. (summary at http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp) Sometimes clergy, other times laymen led them. Monophysitism, monothelitism, Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, Nerstorianism, et al. These movements of flawed doctrine could happen when a guy put his own private interpretation of Scripture as superior to that of the Christian leaders (collectively known as the magisterium & pope) guided by Apostolic Tradition. These heresies were successfully combated ONLY because of the existance of a structured, heirarchical, corporate organization: The One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, which is to say the Catholic Church. The Christians of the day recognized councils of the bishops and the pope as the authority of the Christian Faith System. No other organization as such was in existance. Without an organization having authority and international jurisdiction such heresies could not be countered... There would be no authority to declare which doctrine is true and which is false. (The New Testament canon didn't exist yet, though there was a general idea of the writings people felt to be inspired... but it wasn't official, so some could use uninspired writings as inspired...)
---
Extract from http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CATHEVID.HTM ...
1. The Visible Church
The idea of a visible church is not meant to exclude
spirituality and place stress only on the organization: but
given spiritual unity, then a visible organization follows as
its embodiment and safeguard.
A common opinion, though necessary, is not sufficient:
Shakespeare lovers are not a visible body: the Shakespeare
Society is. The two further things necessary are:
(a) A central authority.
(b) Demarcation of function among properly constituted officials.
Catholicism has these things and boasts of them:
Protestantism has not and boasts of their absence, insisting
that a common opinion (and this of the vaguest sort) is
sufficient to constitute a church.
The question is, did Christ simply sow ideas, or did He also
establish a society to guard and spread them?
---
More info...
What the Vatican has said... Dei Verbum (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION)...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
The Bible and the Church: Both or Neither
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/bbl.html
Summary of Scripture and Church Fathers on the issue...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
Summary of Scripture on Oral Tradition...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
The Two Canons: Scripture and Tradition
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM
On the Task of Interpreting Scripture...
http://209.61.179.205/documents/scripture/On_the_Task.pdf
Sola Scriptura in the early Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm
Private Exegesis apart from Tradition and Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/private.htm
Apostolic Succession
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm
Where We Got the Bible
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)