tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post6206798859415251438..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: DID THE CHURCH PROCLAIM THE CANON?Fr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80253492668248376072012-11-27T12:34:48.521-05:002012-11-27T12:34:48.521-05:00There is an interesting selection from Doctrine in...There is an interesting selection from Doctrine in the Church of England, Report of the Commission, prepared for inclusion in his New Christian Year by Charles Williams: <br /><br />"When the Messiah...stands alone before the high-priest, deserted even by the chosen disciples...he is the sole representative at that moment of God's holy people; he bears in his own person the whole burden of Israel's appointed destiny."<br /><br />Going to look it up, I could not recall whether it included the word 'Church', or even explicitly identified Jesus "at that moment" as solely 'the Church'.<br /><br />It does not. But what is the relation of "God's holy people", Israel, to 'the Church' at that moment?<br /><br />And might we in any case accurately say that Jesus was - and is - ever and only, with respect to perfect holiness, "the sole representative [...] of God's holy people", the Church? <br /><br />Semi-Hookerian<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-45966850738438725162012-11-24T20:49:14.140-05:002012-11-24T20:49:14.140-05:00Thank you, Susan, for a good quote from Scott Hahn...Thank you, Susan, for a good quote from Scott Hahn, and for catching the central point: Jesus is the One who unlocks the Scriptures for us.<br />In Luke's Gospel, the earthly ministry of Jesus began and ended on the same note. In the Nazareth synagogue, He expounded Isaiah. At Emmaus, He concluded His exposition, covering the entire Scripture, Moses (the Penteteuch) and the Prophets (Joshua through Malachi). A similar passage in Acts adds "the Psalms" which was shorthand for the Wisdom literature. The entire Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, which Jesus called "the Scriptures" and we call the Old Testament, testifies to the Messiah, the God-Man Jesus Christ.<br /><br />We must not overlook the critical point that when Jesus preached on earth, the Canon was, even if in an incomplete form, already there. As the Gospels and Epistles were written, they were immediately (with few exceptions) added to it. But even Jesus submitted His teaching to the Scriptures, saying "The Scriptures cannot be broken" and "You are wrong, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."<br /><br />Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77078406939715481822012-11-23T16:16:57.407-05:002012-11-23T16:16:57.407-05:00Some interesting commentary by Scott Hahn:
"...Some interesting commentary by Scott Hahn:<br /><br />"Like Jesus Christ, the Bible is unique. For it is the only book that can truly claim to have both human authors and a divine author, the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, fully divine and fully human - like all of us, except without sin. The Bible is the word of God inspired, fully divine yet fully human - like any other book, except without error. Both Christ and scripture are given, said the Second Vatican Council, "for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum II).<br /><br />So when we read the Bible, we need to read it on two levels at once. We read the Bible in a literal sense as we read any other human literature. But we also read it in a spiritual sense, searching out what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through the words. We do this in imitation of Jesus, because this is the way he read scriptures... We see in Luke's gospel, as our Lord comforted the disciples on the road to Emmaus, that "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them what referred to Him in all the scriptures" (Luke 24:27). After this spiritual reading of the Old Testament, we are told, the disciples' hearts burned within them."<br /><br />I find it interesting that Jesus "interpreted" the scriptures and then the disciples' hearts were ignited.<br /><br />Susan Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51536774979326482772012-11-22T12:33:35.894-05:002012-11-22T12:33:35.894-05:00Officially, Rome maintains the correct and reasona...Officially, Rome maintains the correct and reasonable balance between Scripture as the Word of God and ultimate authority, sacred Tradition grounded and rooted in that Word, and the Church's Magisterium. Consider this passage from Cardinal Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict XVI) Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:<br /><br /><br />"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25, 2)."<br /><br />Naturally, I would cavil at the use of the word "infallibly" (reserving that to Scripture Alone), but otherwise the Cardinal now Pope has priorities in order.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47219430184254248692012-11-22T11:59:54.259-05:002012-11-22T11:59:54.259-05:00Dear welshmann,
Your tone did not strike me (at a...Dear welshmann,<br /><br />Your tone did not strike me (at any rate) as too sharp.<br /><br />With regard to the last part of your (6:40 PM) comment, I wonder if this sentence from Lumen gentium 15 is meant to indicate something like what you suggest: "For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal."<br /><br />With regard to the first part, there were and are already a variety of 'Protestant' responses as to how far the Scriptures are (still) 'also' 'Rome's' and 'Rome' still also 'part of the Church'.<br /><br />My understanding of Hooker, for instance, is that 'Rome' is still 'part' of the Church ('within' and in some sense 'through' which the Scriptures were "produced" - and well understood and interpreted - historically), still sharing the Scriptures and in many respects interpreting them soundly, without, however, an acknowledgement of any unique interpretive authority. <br /><br />Where, for example, the Christian Letter (1599) criticized Hooker's Laws (Preface ii.2) in these terms, "The Church of Rome favourablie admitted to be of the house of God; Calvin with the reformed churches full of faults, and most of all they which indevoured to be most removed from conformitie with the Church of Rome", he added in the margin of his copy, "True. For are not your Anabaptists, Familists, Libertines, Arrians, and other like extreme reformers of popery grown by that very meanes hatefull to the whole world? Are not their heresies a thousand times more execrable and hatefull than popery?"<br /><br />But I do not think this all fully addresses your first part...<br /><br />Semi-HookerianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6753333053602207302012-11-22T11:12:06.684-05:002012-11-22T11:12:06.684-05:00Good points, Welshmann.
And, I might add, it can ...Good points, Welshmann.<br /><br />And, I might add, it can be argued that neither Catholics nor Protestants can cite Holy Scripture to support the "traditional" date chosen by Christians to celebrate the Nativity of our Lord. So, one might ask, on whose authority was that date determined, and does it really matter?<br /><br />Not to me. What matters is that we have faith, hope and love... and the greatest one of these is love. <br /><br />SusanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63758275807840056582012-11-21T18:40:53.068-05:002012-11-21T18:40:53.068-05:00I tried to strike a balance between brevity and ac...I tried to strike a balance between brevity and accuracy; I may not have succeeded. Also, when I re-read my own post, I found that I was a little sharp in my tone, which was not my intent. My apologies.<br /><br />As to the idea that the (Roman) church produced the Scriptures and therefore stands over them, if true, it does mean that Protestants cannot cite the Scriptures in support of their own position while disregarding the authority of the church that produced them. But it also means that a Catholic cannot cite Scripture to a Protestant in support of the Catholic position unless the Catholic is willing to ascribe to Scripture a kind of authority that does not derive from the Roman church. Otherwise, he is just citing a Roman publication to support a Roman position. <br /><br />welshmannwelshmannnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60462474192406034012012-11-21T11:04:17.569-05:002012-11-21T11:04:17.569-05:00Dear welshmann,
My understanding (under correctio...Dear welshmann,<br /><br />My understanding (under correction!) is that for 'Rome' Holy Scripture has a 'higher' place (within the Church) than (I understand) you (to) suggest, but that it can - whether by Ecumenical Council, or the Pope alone - be definitively authoritatively interpreted, and that most supposedly 'infallible' dogmatic pronouncements are intended as matters of such 'ultimately correct' Scriptural interpretation. Such 'infallible' interpretation seems to be seen as 'just as inspired' (by the same Divine source) as the Scripture interpreted.<br /><br />I think your point (well developing one made more than once before by Frs. Hart and Wells) that "division and disputed authority is a problem in every Christian tradition" is true and important - and very much connected with Fr. Wells' weighty question about 'the Church'. <br /><br />Might it further be fair to say there are everywhere (to varying degrees) both issues of 'the Church', 'clergy', 'the Holy Spirit, the (canon of the) Bible, and its interpretation, and also dangers of Churchism (in various senses),clericalism,'Pneumaticism, Biblicalism, 'autopistism', and sometimes even 'spiritualism' in the sense applied, for example, to Sebastian Franck (1499-1542), who came to see not only "the external Church as destroyed immediately after the Apostles" but the 'external word' of Scripture as a "paper Pope" of supposedly properly ignored pretentions - and not only potential dangers?<br /><br />Semi-HookerianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-14637575406208255482012-11-20T23:07:49.642-05:002012-11-20T23:07:49.642-05:00As I understand them, Catholics believe that the L...As I understand them, Catholics believe that the Lord set up the papacy as the ultimate, visible authority on earth to guide the church. They see the Scriptures as a kind of church publication, like the creeds, or the official catechism, or a statement issued by a conference of bishops. Since the pope and bishops published those documents, it is reasonable to insist that only they can say for sure what they mean. Given that view of church hierarchy and the Scriptures, the Catholic position makes perfect sense. Catholics also insist that the extremely divided state of Protestantism is proof that the Scriptures cannot be understood without an external authority to interpret them. But the Catholics are likewise divided. The Catholics are divided from the Orthodox; both are divided from the Oriental Orthodox; and all three are in turn divided from the Church of the East. All these bodies claim exclusive authority to interpret the Scriptures, they all insist that the patristic concensus supports their claim. I'll assume that the Protestants are wrong and the Catholics, Orthodox and others are right, that the Scriptures can be understood only by an authoritative heirarchy. That still leaves the individual believer with four authoritative churches to choose from, and he must choose, because their claims are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, each of these groups has internal factions: rival popes, sedevacantists, conclavists, ultra-traditionalists, modernists, Old Believers, rival hierarches, churches with disputed canonical status, and multiple, competing, overlapping jurisdictions. I've tried to make this brief and clear without being disrespectful, and certainly there is a lot of room for discussion here, but division and disputed authority is a problem in every Christian tradition. It is not unique to Protestantism.<br /><br />welshmannwelshmannnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53966125020274344072012-11-20T20:44:48.912-05:002012-11-20T20:44:48.912-05:00Is it true that Anglicans accept 1 Peter and 2 Pet...Is it true that Anglicans accept 1 Peter and 2 Peter as inspired and canonical letters? Do Anglicans accept Simon Peter as an Apostle of Jesus Christ? His pastoral letters were written to encourage young churches that were enduring persecution... he was answering to destructive heresies. Should his letters be excluded from the Bible? Peter was an eyewitness to the sufferings of Christ. He was a missionary and a martyr. St Irenaeus identifies Peter (along with Paul) as a co-founder of the Roman Church. <br /><br />Are the Continuing Churches apostolic or are they not? What is the one, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed? Is it the via media? <br /><br />I personally do not embrace whatever position is taken by the Bishop of Rome, Fr Hart. Nor do I reject all Roman positions. I try to seek the Truth with humility and patience, knowing full well that my journey is littered with the failings of my feeble and sinful mind.<br /><br />If I am guilty, as you charge, of the worst kind of modern Protestantism, God will be my Judge.<br /><br />May the Lord bless you (and Fr Wells), heal each of you of your illnesses, and fill both of you with His Light and Peace.<br /><br />Susan <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-74817166948491881112012-11-20T20:14:37.372-05:002012-11-20T20:14:37.372-05:00Father Wells,
salva reverentia:
When you say (5...Father Wells,<br /><br />salva reverentia: <br /><br />When you say (5:16 PM), "Enough already" I am reminded of Bilbo's Baggins' answer to the Troll, "Lots, none at all" - in this case lots of discussion, with no consensus yet. Perhaps in one way or another, "too much, but not yet enough."<br /><br />"Let me bring you back to the sentence" - but I am not aware of having ever left it!<br /><br />"No amount of spin" - but I have not, so far as I can judge, engaged in any "spin".<br /><br />"Such as it is", "apparently arbitrarily", "select certain writings for inclusion" are all your words, not his ("a feat of ventriloquism", perhaps, however unconscious?)!<br /><br />As far as I can see, to attribute such a meaning - whether with improper rejoicing in that meaning, or proper condemnation of it - is to misread the sentence. To read it in a way which finds no support in the immediate context, or the context of the whole book.<br /><br />"The Bible is the supreme expression of God's revelation to man" - on a minutely verbal level "made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit": his "plain language".<br /><br />"To exclude false writings" is to "decide" (since there was - or seemed - some question). Is it to do so with or without any "authority"? Is it to do so within or without (or even as) "the Church"? So with respect to the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews - and what with respect to the (on some evidence not universally recognized) Epistle to the Hebrews?<br /><br />And is "Holy Scripture" - "can" it be - ever "interpret[ed...] with authority"? If so, where, and how? <br /><br />I think Hooker's striking marginalium is relevant: "Two things there are which trouble greatly these later times: one that the Church of Rome cannot, another that Geneva will not erre."<br /><br />Perhaps it is impossible to generalize with respect to the (autocephalous) 'Orthodox Church(es)', but for all triumphalisms and (as far as I can see) 'One-True-Church' wrongheadedness, they have not (insofar as Met. Kallistos's exposition is just) boxed themselves into the 'Roman' problems of 'infallibility', but like "Geneva" (in the broadest sense) suffer from not wanting often enough to admit where they are - or might be - erring.<br /><br />Further, I rejoice in your "question" (11:55 AM), and suggest that Met. Kallistos's whole book, read carefully, may be very relevant to attempting to answer it!<br /><br />Semi-Hookerian<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-44304694364856664842012-11-20T19:19:09.851-05:002012-11-20T19:19:09.851-05:00Susan:
At least you appear to have answered Fr. ...Susan:<br /> <br />At least you appear to have answered Fr. Wells challenge about what you mean by the Church. Since you speak of "Peter and his successors" you mean, by "the Church" merely whatever position is taken by the bishop of Rome. But, he is not the authority who makes any decisions in your own church; neither does your own church consider the Magisterium in Rome to be without error.<br /><br />Furthermore, your view of the Bible is not at all in accord with the Catholic Tradition, be it RC, EO, Anglican or even Oriental. It is, instead, the worst kind of modern Protestantism. The irony is, you cited how Luther got too close to the same thing in his words about the Epistle of James.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84018458204021105942012-11-20T16:38:29.709-05:002012-11-20T16:38:29.709-05:00Fr Wells,
The Church (ecclesia in Greek) is the s...Fr Wells,<br /><br />The Church (ecclesia in Greek) is the society founded by Jesus Christ, to my understanding. It is built on the rock of Peter and his successors. It is the Kingdom of God begun on earth (Matt 3:2). The authority of the Church is handed down by Apostolic Succession. Thereby the ordination of a Priest is made valid by the laying on of hands by a Bishop. <br /><br />Fr Hart,<br /><br />I have quoted Scripture because it is the written record of the words of God. However, it is not the Word of God... that is, it is not God. Scripture records Christ giving authority to His Church and not to Scripture. Can Scripture be authoritative unto itself for all of humanity, or should it be interpreted by the governing authority established by Christ? <br /><br />2 Peter 3:15-16 states: "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." Here we see inspired Scripture saying that inspired Scripture can be hard to understand. AMEN! So it is, although Luther claimed that the Scriptures are clear and if people have trouble understanding them they have only themselves to blame.<br /><br />God designed his Church to be the agent of safeguard of His truth. Look at the thousands of conflicting Protestant groups, each with a slightly or dramatically different interpretation of His truth. Can they all be right?<br /><br />Susan <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5845616854570374402012-11-20T11:55:22.299-05:002012-11-20T11:55:22.299-05:00This question is addressed to all participants, my...This question is addressed to all participants, myself included. When we speak of "The Church" having authority (whether over or under or co-ordinate with the Holy Scripture), what exactly do we mean by "The Church"? Using this word Church in a monolithic way demands clarification. Do we mean the ancient Councils (not much danger of one being called in our lifetime)? Do we mean the Roman magisterium (still alive and kicking)? Do we mean a congregational meeting, in the Baptistic sense? Do we mean some vaguely defined "ubique, semper, et ab omnibus" mainstream of Christian thought which conveniently excludes the Oriental Orthodox? What precisely does "The Church" mean when we speak of its "having authority"? Unless we can hang some empirical meaning onto this term, then to speak of the authority of the Church is not false but simply meaningless. Where and how is this pretended authority really in operation?Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72308790296461699972012-11-20T09:14:35.875-05:002012-11-20T09:14:35.875-05:00Susan, in your attempt to argue that the authority...Susan, in your attempt to argue that the authority of Scripture is inferior to that of the Church, you quote (twice, in fact!) from the Bible. Can you not see the inherent contradiction? If you feel that the Bible is only a second rate authority, why do you appeal to it? Your argument is self-refuting.<br /><br />Your use of Acts 15:28 is interesting. The admirers of KJS frequently describe her election as PB in the same terms--an act of the Holy Spirit. What you and they fail to grasp is that the influence of the Holy Ghost in a Church Council is something which can only be perceived in long retrospect. A bunch of people getting together and deciding by majority vote to "ordain" females or bless homosexual unions can hardly be called the action of the Holy Spirit. But at this point, you and the revisionists are in strong agreement.<br /><br />Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52092797402452877612012-11-20T00:31:15.919-05:002012-11-20T00:31:15.919-05:00Susan:
If you accept the authority of the Church,...Susan:<br /><br />If you accept the authority of the Church, then accept the Church's belief that the Scriptures give us our orders straight from our Lord Himself. No authority is higher. <br /><br />If your later comment is to the effect that Luther had a weakness concerning the Canon, especially the Epistle of James, I have made the same point. But, in his day, the teaching of Rome was full of deadly errors, and so his Stand was more than justified.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90102641332580735002012-11-19T17:05:15.441-05:002012-11-19T17:05:15.441-05:00Now here comes some commentary to ponder (excerpte...Now here comes some commentary to ponder (excerpted from an article written by Dr Shaywitz that can be found in today's Wall Street Journal):<br /><br />"Knowledge, then, is less a canon than a consensus in a state of constant disruption. Part of the disruption has to do with error and its correction, but another part with simple newness..." <br /><br />Luther would concur, I dare say.<br /><br />Susan<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6968870859260347572012-11-19T12:59:30.404-05:002012-11-19T12:59:30.404-05:00...(continued)
So, as much as it seems I might be ......(continued)<br />So, as much as it seems I might be pushing back here against Fr. Wells and Fr. Hart, I think their concern is legitimate: that we don't disentangle the Church's sacramental authority from Her founding documents, even if the documents came through Her. And to answer my own question: Mary's authority over and priority to Jesus in time, must be trumped by the Word's entry into time, lest we disentangle our Lady's glory from the Word of the Lord.<br /><br />I don't know the "easy" answer to this, but I do know that the sad biblical illiteracy among many of the valid apostolic bodies (Rome especially, just visit most any church) is a product of a lazy "we got authority, what else do we need?" mentality. Maybe, just maybe, the devil's best work is done when he uses authority to his advantage. Authority, you say? Yes, keep it! By all means -- but don't let anyone in on the sick joke that it's an authority with the foundations removed.<br /><br />In my mind, the Grand Tradition is Sacred Scripture, and everything we believe flows from it and by it. It is the constitution of the Catholic faith and Church. This is not the same as certain silly theories about Sola Scriptura which excludes Tradition as having nothing to do with faith and practice, it's just meant to say that it is no less a guardrail against heresy -- in fact, it is, to draw from a biblical analogy, the very street lights that keeps the Church from crashing and burning.<br /><br />The exchange has been enlightening and challenging, though now I think I need to go back and read Yves Congar's works on Tradition!<br /><br />Steven Augustine BadalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-36524385087420882792012-11-19T12:59:00.492-05:002012-11-19T12:59:00.492-05:00Susan,
I have agreed with your comments on the wh...Susan,<br /><br />I have agreed with your comments on the whole, but this question comes to mind:<br /><br />Is the Church's (apostolic) authority tied to apostolic teaching as well as the Holy Spirit? In other words, if any part of the Church abandons the Hagia Graphe, or seriously neglects it, can that part of the Church claim proper authority? Something akin to a police officer sworn to uphold the written laws, for lack of a better analogy, yet decides some parts of those laws are inconvenient or "not relevant" to the times -- what should we make of his authority? Historically the cop can be said to have received the true authority, but at present wouldn't his actions nullify the reason for his existence in the first place?<br /><br />What I see in this little (albeit substantive) debate here is the struggle to maintain the priority of clear, apostolic witness (the writings, which nobody disputes as authoritative) along-side the indispensable and necessary place of the continued apostolic ministry in and for the church (which no historically-minded apostolic Christians deny). The Scriptures provide the indisputable foundation for our pedigree of apostolicity, since it clearly mandates such a thing. There are pretenders or apostates who ignore the clear apostolic witness in favor of a "fluctuating" standard (often sneaking in under the guise of "Living Tradition"), and their proper (historical) apostolic authority is now a moot point if they ignore the foundation.<br /><br />This is by no stretch an argument for the Reformed or Lutheran vision of apostolicity wrapped up in merely the right checklist of doctrine -- there has to be a real sacramental (and I assert tactile) sending; but it can be no less than the foundations either. If a priest or bishop (pope or what have you) usurps Scripture, he is just as guilty of breaking Tradition, and even more perniciously so than the priest or bishop who waffles on the question of Purgatory (which I hold to, but is not as grave a question as whether Christ really rose from the dead or God is really Triune).<br /><br />I think of the about-face of post-Vatican II theology, for example, in spirit if not in letter, about other religions. The over-accommodating eirenicism is actually, by my lights, a denial of the unique and saving message of the Gospel over against the darkness and deception of the rest of mankind's false gods. I remember years ago I was castigated by an arch-deacon in the Roman Church when he learned of my evil plan to reach out to our dear Jewish friends with the Gospel of Christ. His perception was that Vatican II denied the need to reach them with the saving Gospel (they are lost, right?) This is a clear example of "tradition" gone wrong - since it violates the clear precepts of Scripture and the overwhelming testimony of the Church for close to 2000 years. But from their vantage point, the true successor of Peter and his college of cardinals and bishops decided the Living Tradition wasn't meant to be so radically divisive -- after all, doesn't the Gospel bring unity and not a sword? OH! Jesus said something quite opposite.<br />...(to be continued)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75887505970802865732012-11-19T07:27:18.574-05:002012-11-19T07:27:18.574-05:00I admit to much ignorance, Fr Hart. Please explai...I admit to much ignorance, Fr Hart. Please explain what you have defined as "inherent self-contradiction" in my posts.<br /><br />The Church was given authority by the Author of it Who is God. For example, in Acts 13:1-4 we read the following: "Now in the Church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus."<br /><br />The Antiochene Church is here being directed by God, is it not? <br /><br />In Acts 15:28 we read this: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." Here it appears that the Council was being guided by the Holy Spirit, does it not? <br /><br />Jesus had promised to do this for the ordained leadership of the Church through the Spirit. In John 16:13-15 Jesus is recorded as saying this: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."<br /><br />God is the Author of it all and He is guiding His Church,not vice versa. <br /> <br />Again I ask with my feeble mind: where have I missed the mark?<br /><br />Many thanks,<br /><br />Susan<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-66498773872284007782012-11-18T17:16:50.235-05:002012-11-18T17:16:50.235-05:00Sedmi-Hookerian: Let me bring you back to the sen...Sedmi-Hookerian: Let me bring you back to the sentence which I quoted from Timothy Ware:<br /><br />""It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.” <br /><br />Perhaps I am only a country parson who naively believes that words mean what they mean, and that no high-falutin interpretations are necessary for plain language. He says in so many words that the Bible's authority (such as it is) is derived from the Church and that the Church decided (apparently arbitrarily) to select certain writings for inclusion in its approved list. These are falsehoods and must be repudiated as such. No amount of spin can improve on his plain language. <br /><br />Enough already. Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61328314082045523812012-11-18T12:57:30.111-05:002012-11-18T12:57:30.111-05:00Susan:
Why can't you see an inherent self-con...Susan:<br /><br />Why can't you see an inherent self-contradiction in what you're saying? Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18987436571557576522012-11-18T09:09:40.665-05:002012-11-18T09:09:40.665-05:00No, Fr Hart, of course I did not mean to imply tha...No, Fr Hart, of course I did not mean to imply that the Church has authority over God! Nonsense! God gave the Church authority. <br /><br />Matt 10:1-4,5,40; 16:18-19; 18:17-18; 19:27-30; 20:25-28; 28:16-20<br /><br />Mark 3:13-15; 10:42-25; 16:15-18<br /><br />Luke 10:16; 22:24-30; 24:44-49<br /><br />John 20:21<br /><br />Acts 2:42; 4:33,35; 5:12; 6:2-6<br /><br />1Cor 12:28-30<br /><br />2Cor 13:10<br /><br />2 Thess 3:14<br /><br />Eph 2:20; 4:11<br /><br />Regarding Apostolic Succession:<br /><br />John 20:21<br /><br />Acts 1:15-26<br /><br />2Tim 2:2<br /><br />Tit 1:5<br /><br />Authority was given to the Church, not to the Bible. That does not take away God's authority for He has authored it all. <br /><br />Susan Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5389213086460222092012-11-17T23:46:54.983-05:002012-11-17T23:46:54.983-05:00Susan wrote:
"On whose authority is the Bible...Susan wrote:<br />"On whose authority is the Bible elevated above the Church?"<br /><br />Is that meant to be a serious question? The Universal Church recognizes the Bible as those "books that have God as their Author" - to quote the Vatican Document <i>Dominus Iesus</i>. So, are you suggesting that we have it upside down? For, your question implies that we, the Church, have authority over God. He has spoken, and we get to tell Him if He's right or wrong? Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63181021160217905752012-11-17T22:02:43.254-05:002012-11-17T22:02:43.254-05:00(Part II)
To quote afresh, he says, for example, ...(Part II)<br /><br />To quote afresh, he says, for example, that “At a true Ecumenical Council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it” (p. 257) – any ‘proclaiming’ follows after – and upon – ‘recognition’ of “the truth” ‘already there’(so to put it) to be recognized.<br /><br /> He continues (p. 258) with a long, and so far as I can see approving, quotation from the Rev. Dr. John Meyendorff from which I will select: “It is […] the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us.” And “the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria ’", and for a council to be “in the truth”, “He who said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth, the Life’" must be present in the midst of those assembled. He sees Protestants as materializing “the presence of God in the Church […] in the letter of Scripture” – “not thereby avoid[ing] the miracle, but cloth[ing] it in a concrete form. For Orthodoxy, the sole ‘criterion of truth’ remains God Himself, living mysteriously in the Church, leading it in the way of the Truth.” <br /><br />I take this to mean that “the miracle of the presence of God” is indeed in the Scripture, but must not be (as it were) misconceived as being peculiarly ‘hived off’ there. <br /><br />Compare Calvin in Institutes I.vii.5 (Beveridge trans. of 1559 ed.): “Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit”. It “came to us, by the instrumentality of men” – presumably within ‘the Church’ through men who were ‘members’ of it . And God is said to have “been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children” – but not “until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church.” <br /><br />How different are the two? Is either more problematical, or less unproblematical, than the other? (For instance, does Calvin guard against any danger of ‘hiving off’ by insisting on the distinct “testimony of the Spirit”? Is the ‘reservation’ respecting “the body of the Church” any different from the Orthodox emphases?)<br /><br />None of this is to suggest that God does not work through Scripture ‘outside’ the Church to bring members of the first Adam to become members of the Second (in His Body the Church). (Was Augustine a catechumen at the point you note? I suppose catechumens were dismissed from the Liturgy in earnest at the time. Is it not seen as part of what is wonderful in the experience of St. Martin with the beggar that he was still a catechumen then?)<br /><br />Semi-HookerianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com