tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3174438236230808973..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Second Sunday in AdventFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60358065789475871462014-12-14T12:07:10.428-05:002014-12-14T12:07:10.428-05:00So you agree with those quotes i posted?So you agree with those quotes i posted?Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17686738325565738419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76496818366869666782014-12-13T21:45:33.988-05:002014-12-13T21:45:33.988-05:00This is simply history that cannot be refuted.This is simply history that cannot be refuted.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16412853033706323962014-12-12T16:17:02.789-05:002014-12-12T16:17:02.789-05:00Father Hart can an Anglican agree with the followi...Father Hart can an Anglican agree with the following? <br /><br />We should not deceive ourselves: the existence of New Testament writings, recognized as being “apostolic”, does not yet imply the existence of a “New Testament” as “Scripture”—there is a long way from the writings to Scripture. It is well known, and should not be overlooked, that the New Testament does not anywhere understand itself as “Scripture”; “Scripture” is, for the New Testament, simply the Old Testament, while the message about Christ is precisely “spirit”, which teaches us how to understand Scripture.” The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger ,25).<br /><br />Canon originally referred to those texts used as scripture liturgically. In this sense, the Church created and received and developed the canon as she developed her liturgy.<br /><br />As meaning those books that are truly inspired by God, the Church did create those books themselves, insofar as the human authors were members of either the Jewish nation (Old Testament) or the Church (New Testament). This is just manifest history. They derive their authority, however, from God, not their human authors. So the Church most certainly had a hand in creating the Bible, but the authority in it is because God is the author.<br /><br />As far as creating a list of such inspired books. Again, yes the Church created that list. It didn't fall out of the sky. In creating it, it recognized the authority of these texts. It is the same authority from which the Church gets her authority, and the Church's authority is what confirms the authenticity of Scripture. The proximate rule of Faith is the Church, and remote rule is scripture and tradition. The Church's authority extends as guardian, keeper, and presented of the remote rule. This means, while intrinsically the authority is because God is the author, we recognize that authority in those texts because His Church has recognized such, imbued by His authority as well.<br /><br />Sort of like how PSA signs off on the authenticity of Jackie Robinson's signature on a baseball. Its authenticity does not derive from PSA, but PSA has the authority (through expertise) to examine a signature and determine its actual author.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17686738325565738419noreply@blogger.com