tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post1938825939578513375..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Catholic Quotes on the BibleJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-17300919104933096912009-01-21T21:54:00.000-05:002009-01-21T21:54:00.000-05:00I agree that the claims of Kung and Wills must be ...I agree that the claims of Kung and Wills must be evaluated on their merits, but you seemed to be using their identity as "Catholic scholars" to advance particular claims (at least that was my perception...I apologize if I was mistaken). Given their proven track-record of denying clear teachings of the Church (Kung denies infallibility, he supports women's ordination; the list for Wills could go on and on), at the very least it makes this sort of use of them a bit shaky. But, as you said, it really doesn't matter. What matters is the evidence and their conformity to reason in matters accessible to it and to the Scripture in matters pertaining thereto. <BR/><BR/>(By the way, I have agreed before that there was a campaign against Modernism in the early 20th century. This had little to do with the access of laity to Scripture and more to do with the practices of "Higher Criticism" in the writings of Catholic scholars, but there were different sorts of limitations on vernacular and lay readings of Scripture after the Reformation which lasted to some degree into the 20th century and, even in some ways, to Vatican II.)<BR/><BR/>As for the arguments in the second half of your post, I can only say that they are based on a really clear misreading of the text. "Devotion to the word of God" is precisely referring TO the reading and meditation upon Scripture. As you said, this sort of activity, if guided by the Holy Spirit, can lead to a changed attitude towards our neighbor (works of charity) and so on. So I think there is no disagreement here. <BR/><BR/>As for your comment about the uselessness of reading Scripture if there is an authoritative Magisterium, you should expand your survey of Magisterial statements about Scripture. If you look in Gaudium et Spes or Dei Verbum (I put some relevant quotations in the combox on "Hi Carrie"), you will see a very clear resolution of this apparent paradox. <BR/><BR/>First of all, I don't personally read Scripture to come up with a personal theology. I primarily read Scripture to meditate upon the glory and goodness of God and his relationship with his people throughout the covenants and especially through the work of Christ. But, of course, I do evaluate my beliefs as I am reading Scripture since I believe that Scripture is the primary and materially sufficient source of all authentic Revelation (very unclear way of putting that in one sentence!) But when I do that, I don't believe that I have some kind of special authority to propose that "authentically" for all Christians. Now, as a scholar, I can be in dialogue with the community of faith as it reflects more deeply on its teachings (again, see Gaudium et Spes), I can even make a serious contribution to how the Church proposes its teachings to the faithful (as "private" readers of Scripture have done in the past), but I don't have that kind of authority. That authority is entrusted, in my view as a Catholic, to the shepherds of the faithful in communion with the See of Peter. <BR/><BR/>Now...I don't see why that conviction would in any way impede me from reading Scripture, either for the devotional purposes I describe above or even for scholarly/doctrinal reasons. Indeed, I really just don't see how your conclusion would follow.Gaetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722914942511761947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18929029138317512802009-01-21T21:29:00.000-05:002009-01-21T21:29:00.000-05:00Hi Matt,Well I hope my arguments (not meant in a c...Hi Matt,<BR/><BR/>Well I hope my arguments (not meant in a contentious sense at all) hold water because the reflect God’s Word, not my defense of any human. I don’t know that I said Wills and Kung were “authoritative Catholic theologians” (whatever that means) but I think we would both have to agree that they are both published scholars and Catholic. Both were educated in Catholic universities and at least one was a long time professor at a Catholic University. I don’t think the fact that they are out of favor disqualifies their scholarship. We often learn more from disagreement than agreement.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the bit about the synod of bishops. And I am glad to know that the Bible is back in favor in Catholic circles. But since the Catechism says, “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted SOLELY (my emphasis) to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. “ what is the point of reading it? If an individual can’t interpret what he reads why read it? Wouldn’t it be more in line with the Catechism to read a Magisterial commentary on the Bible? At least then you could have some reasonable assurance that it was the right interpretation. I’m curious what you think.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: “Devotion to the word of God must lead Catholics to prayer, concrete acts of charity, unity with other Christians and dialogue with all people of good will, said the world Synod of Bishops.” <BR/><BR/>See, I think we have a good example here of the different views of the Bible. Views that, interestingly, are opposites. The Christian would say that it is not man’s devotion to the Word of God that leads to prayer, etc but rather the other way around. It is God’s Word that leads man to devotion and good works. Consider “I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD.” (Jeremiah 24:7) or “And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:27). And the Apostle Paul: “…“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:9). Good works come later, as Paul says: “For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Eph. 2:10) So you are right that we show the world through our good works, but those are not of ourselves, “lest any man should boast”. <BR/><BR/>You see this again in the phrase, "This bond must always be reinforced" (by human effort – my addition). That seems to contradict the clear teaching of God in Isaiah 55:11, “so is my word that goes out from my mouth: <BR/> It will not return to me empty, <BR/> but will accomplish what I desire <BR/> and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.<BR/>God’s word accomplishes God’s purposes without any reinforcement from man.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the note, Matt. I hope you will join your fellow Catholics and continue to read God’s Word. It is His Power and it will avail much for you.<BR/><BR/>Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42430865561623023622009-01-21T15:48:00.000-05:002009-01-21T15:48:00.000-05:00Constantine,Your arguments would have more weight ...Constantine,<BR/><BR/>Your arguments would have more weight if you did not continue to defend Kung and Wills. Anyway, does this help at all?<BR/><BR/>"In 1979, Küng's license to teach Catholic theology was revoked by Pope John Paul II, a decision in which Ratzinger played a role as a member of the German bishops' conference. In the years since, Küng has been a leading critic of both many of the doctrinal positions espoused by Ratzinger, and the investigatory procedures by which they are enforced."<BR/><BR/>http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn092605.htm<BR/><BR/>Excommunications are rare these days. Saying that someone is an authoritative Catholic theologian because they have not been excommunicated is really absurd.<BR/><BR/>Here is the report from a recent synod of bishops:<BR/><BR/>Devotion to the word of God must lead Catholics to prayer, concrete acts of charity, unity with other Christians and dialogue with all people of good will, said the world Synod of Bishops.<BR/><BR/>In their final message to the world's Catholics, the 253 members of the synod said each Catholic should have a copy of the Bible, read it and pray with it regularly.<BR/><BR/>"Every home should have its own Bible and safeguard it in a visible and dignified way, to read it and to pray with it," said the synod's message, released Oct. 24.<BR/><BR/>And, like Jesus who came to proclaim hope and salvation, "the Christian has the mission to announce this divine word of hope by sharing with the poor and the suffering, through the witness of faith in the kingdom of truth and life, of holiness and grace, of justice, and love and peace," the synod said.<BR/><BR/>"Authentic hearing is obeying and acting. It means making justice and love blossom in life," the message said.<BR/><BR/>It is not enough to explain the word of God to others, the bishops said, but people must let others see and experience the goodness of God through the good that they do.<BR/><BR/>Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture and principal drafter of the message, told reporters that "if the word of God is love, then one who has read and prayed over the word must incarnate love. It must lead to communion, solidarity and dialogue."<BR/><BR/>Nearing the end of a synod that featured for the first time a major address by the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, the bishops also insisted that "veneration and love for the word of God" is "the principle and source of a first and real unity" that Catholics share with other Christians.<BR/><BR/>"This bond must always be reinforced" through joint work on biblical translations, the distribution of Bibles, shared prayer, dialogue and study about differing approaches to interpretation and "the common witness of the word of God in a secularized world," the message said.Gaetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722914942511761947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37929085253689399232009-01-21T15:15:00.000-05:002009-01-21T15:15:00.000-05:00PaulHoffer,Sorry for the delay.You discredit Wills...PaulHoffer,<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the delay.<BR/><BR/>You discredit Wills and Kung based on your view of orthodoxy but neither man has been excommunicated by the church. Isn’t that odd? And you affirm Sippo, who has no theological training because you like his “facts.” I still find that interesting.<BR/><BR/>I’m glad to hear that Bible study is going on in Catholic schools. I will tell you in the 12 years that I was in Catholic schools and based on my first hand experience with 3 generations of my family that did the same, there was never a Bible in any school or church at any time. As a church musician I attended 4-5 Masses every week and was in several sacristies as well as the main sanctuary and never saw a Bible. And since I grew up in a cathedral parish, if the Catholic Church does indeed include the Bible, this was a long-standing oversight by no less than five bishops of the church.<BR/><BR/>You are right, the church certainly is the Body of Christ, but you err in your assumption that the “church” is the Roman Catholic Church. It is very clear from the writings of the OT (Deut. 7:6-7, 10:15, Jeremiah 1:5, Ex. 33:19), the Gospels (Matt. 11:27, Mark 13:20, John 17:6), the writings of the Apostles (Ephesians 1, 1 Peter 1, Romans 4:16, 8:29-30) that the church is that body of believers chosen by Christ before the foundations of the earth. They are not members of any particular group. Jesus Himself rebuked the Apostle John for making that mistake(Mark 9:38-39). So the church cannot be the “pen” with which God writes on our hearts, because the true church was created before time and the writing was done before any created matter.<BR/><BR/>The context of Ephesians (you cite 1:22-23, 3:10) is the eternal, finished work of Christ. Paul writes this letter to the “faithful in Christ Jesus” (vs. 1) and he talks exclusively in the past tense about what Jesus had already done – “who has blessed us”, “he chose us in him before the creation of the world”, “In love he predestined us”, “he adopted us”, “we have redemption”, etc. etc. So when we get to vss. 22-23, we have to see the “church” in that context. It is not some earthly institution but it is the congregation of the faithful, established by Christ before time began. And since Rome came in to existence after that, the “church” cannot be any earthly organization. And as God was head of His church before Christ’s birth, He continues to as head of the church in the presence of His Son, who is one with Him in being. To interpret the “church” of Ephesians 1 as an earthly institution it to miss the point, entirely. Likewise the meaning of Eph. 3:10 is consistent with that when you read the rest of the sentence which is vs. 11: “ according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Christ’s church is His Body because of His ontological nature. It contains only true believers and was established that way before time. I hope that helps with Ephesians. (I will resist asking, as you did, “Now who knows the Bible?”)<BR/><BR/>Why do churches need Bibles if God has already written His law on their hearts? <BR/><BR/>It is a great question and has a profound answer: because God commanded us to meditate on His word, “day and night” (Joshua 1:8, Psalm 1:2). He further commanded us to “carefully follow the words of the Law, which are written in this book…” (Dt. 28:58) in order to avoid His wrath and to enjoy His provision (Dt. 30:9-10, 1 Kings 2:3)); to keep from following false doctrines (Jos. 23:6); to be sure we don’t add to His words (Proverbs 30:6, 1 Corinthians 4:6,) to keep from following earthly traditions (Mark 7:8); to gain more insight (Psalm 119:99); to keep from being “mugged” by “deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition…rather than on Christ”. (Col 2:8) So churches need Bibles in order to fulfill the commands of God and to help man “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)<BR/><BR/>You wrote: Are we to assume that churches that have bibles in their pews consist of people that God did not write the law into their hearts? <BR/><BR/>Yes. Using your definition of “church” that is exactly right. There are, right now and at all times, unbelievers sitting in Catholic and Christian churches which have Bibles that are not believers. Those unbelievers are not part of the true Body of Christ.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Until next time, Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74925844010300126512009-01-18T20:04:00.000-05:002009-01-18T20:04:00.000-05:00Hi Rhology, Thank you for answering my question to...Hi Rhology, Thank you for answering my question to Carrie. However, I must point out that your answer in truth did not actually answer my question. Your answer only led to innumerable more questions.<BR/><BR/>To start. Why is my question the wrong question? Do the Scriptures proclaim themselves. If someone never opens the Bible or for that matter never receives the opportunity to read the Scriptures, how does the Bible in and of itself speak to that person? <BR/><BR/>You said, "And as for how it's living and active, I'd ask the author of Hebrews." <BR/><BR/>Ok. I pick up a Bible, open it to Hebrews and ask it a question, will it answer me? Nope. I must read it. Now, hopefully I am one of approximately 78% of the world's population that can read and hopefully the Bible is accurately translated into a language I understand. Now if I knew nothing of Christianity or the teachings of the Church about this book, how could I understand it? I submit that the Bible in and of itself does not speak unless it is given voice through the Church that preaches it. <BR/><BR/>You wrote about "The Letter to the Hebrews." Ok. I pick it up and look at it. Where does it say that it divinely inspired or that the people to whom it was written were to keep the letter in perpetuity so it could be incorporated into a group of books a couple of hundred of years later? Heck, the darn thing isn't even signed. Did St. Paul write it? (Turretinfan doesn't think so and we all know what an authoritative character he is.) Am I allowed to believe that St. Paul wrote it like folks almost unanimously did up to the Reformation? Or did Barnabas, John Mark, or Luke write it? Does it even matter? <BR/><BR/>I begin to read it and at Heb. 1:1I see, "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." Now if this is the only book of the Bible I read, where do I find the words that Jesus spoke? Or was this book to be kept in a time capsule until the rest of the canon of the NT was written. And what do you think about the sayings of Jesus that are not found in the Gospel? I mean we find in Acts St. Paul quoting something Jesus said that is not found in the four Gospels. And since Luke wrote one of them, do you think he forgot to put it the first part? Likewise, if one were to look at the writings of several of the early Church fathers, we will find a number of quotations of the Jesus that are not found anywhere in the Gospels. Shouldn't those be considered too? <BR/><BR/>At Heb. 2:1, one finds, "Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have HEARD lest we drift away from it." Who spoke what the audience had heard? The Letter to the Hebrews? <BR/><BR/>At Heb. 4:17, we find the phrase I presume you are referencing-good enough-but now having read this, please explain to me who the the "some one" is that is being referenced at Heb. 5:12: "[Y]ou need some one to teach you again the first principles of God's words." <BR/><BR/>Well wait a second! If the Bible is self-sufficient,<BR/>why do I need someone to teach me principles? Why doesn't the writer of Hebrews just list them here and be done with it or at the very least direct the audience to the passages of the Bible he thinks enunciate those principals? <BR/><BR/>Later, we find at Heb. 13:7, "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the Word of God; consider the outcome of their life and imitate their faith." Now wait another second, didn't you tell me (rather cavilierly) to read Hebrews to find out how the Bible is active and living? And here we find that there are leaders speaking the Word of God. Is this what you meant? Who are theses leaders? Bishops, priests, deacons? The Westminster Confession of Faith? You?<BR/><BR/>Or is "leaders" an euphemism for the Bible? If so, why is the writer also talking about the Word of God in the same sentence? If the writer is not talking about the living and active Word of God, why am I being called upon to consider these leaders' lives and to imitate their faith if the Bible is sufficient in and of itself? Why isn't the author of Hebrews telling me to just go and read my Bible instead? Or does he not think that the Bible alone is active and living enough? <BR/><BR/>Do you see my point? It would appear that the Bible (Word of God) is living and active only because people preach it and people follow the precepts of what is being preached. And people can only follow those precepts when they understand them which means that someone has to authoritatively interpret those words so there is some uniformity of understanding and then go and preach those words. <BR/><BR/>And would you agree with me that the writer of Hebrews wrote this epistle to a specific audience? And who is that audience? The Church. Who was the Word of God preached to? The Church. Who are the leaders leading? The Church. <BR/>Catholics do not reduce the Word of God to just a book. We live what it teaches in a community of believers. And we begin to learn what it teaches through our leaders. There is nothing "sola" whatsoever about it.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you should want me to read a different book of the Bible? <BR/><BR/>BTW, if you and I disagree on what the passages I just referenced in Hebrews, is the Bible going to step in and tell us which of us is right? If so, how is the Bible going to enforce its arbital decision and bind us to follow it? How is its authority enforced?<BR/><BR/>God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77899955383934818492009-01-18T19:58:00.000-05:002009-01-18T19:58:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71981085146538846952009-01-16T08:20:00.000-05:002009-01-16T08:20:00.000-05:00If no one reads it? That's the wrong question.And...If no one reads it? That's the wrong question.<BR/>And as for how it's living and active, I'd ask the author of Hebrews.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30595731229265525362009-01-16T00:47:00.000-05:002009-01-16T00:47:00.000-05:00Hi Carrie, you said: "Wrong. The scriptures are ac...Hi Carrie, you said: "Wrong. The scriptures are active, a constitution is not." <BR/><BR/>Ok, I will bite...how is Scripture in and of itself active if no one reads it or interprets it?Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6282807148723411682009-01-15T17:58:00.000-05:002009-01-15T17:58:00.000-05:00In short, your citation does not contradict the po...<I>In short, your citation does not contradict the points I raised nor does my view of the authority of Scriptures and the authority of the Church differ from what Pope Pius XII approved.</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't trying to contradict your points, just giving a quote that does admit a superiority of the church over the bible.<BR/><BR/>Logically, if the bible needs an interpreter to function and to even be known as divine (which is a point you make alot here), then that interpreter/validator is superior. Now, I will give you that you stated superior in authority and that is not as clear cut.<BR/><BR/><I>Instead, He wrote a Bible that serves likes a constitution and established a Church that functions as its final interpreter.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. The scriptures are active, a constitution is not.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79879474533662785702009-01-15T02:29:00.000-05:002009-01-15T02:29:00.000-05:00Hi Carrie, I didn't know you replied to one of my ...Hi Carrie, I didn't know you replied to one of my previous comments until I saw a commentary on RDP's blog about it. See, http://the-supplement.blogspot.com/2009/01/retort-that-wasn.html [Thanks RDP!] <BR/><BR/>I don't have much to add RDP's article except the following. In our legal system here in America, we consider the United States Constitution to be our highest legal authority. Our whole system of justice is premised on that authority. No law or court decision can contradict it. But the Constitution does not interpret itself as it does not define the words that are found there. For example, you will not find a definition for "due process" in the Fifth Amendment.<BR/><BR/>However, courts do interpret what "due process" means. The highest interpretative authority in this country is the United States Supreme Court. When there is a dispute over the meaning of the words in the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final authority that interprets what those words mean. Citizens of this country are bound to follow the Constitution, but we are bound to follow it in accordance with the interpretations given it by the Supreme Court. Hence the Constitution is the supreme legal authority but the Supreme Court is the supreme interpreter of that authority. The Constitution requires that we are guaranteed the right to "due process" of law, but it is the Supreme Court that decides how much process we are due.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, it is with the Word of God and the Church. The Word of God is the Church's highest authority it appeals to in determining doctrine, but it is the Church that is the highest authoritative interpreter of what the words of the Bible mean when a situation arises that such is needed.<BR/><BR/>To carry this point a bit further without stretching it too much because like all analogies it is not perfect, it is entirely possible that a legal system could be devised where the courts do not have interpretative authority. France for example was governed by a set of laws called the Napoleanic Code (they still may for all I know). It defined the meaning of its words so that the courts merely functioned to enforce the Code. If a situation arose where the Code could not be applied, the legislature merely wrote up a new law to cover it.<BR/><BR/>God could have written the Bible to function as His own Napoleanic Code if He had wanted to. Instead, He wrote a Bible that serves likes a constitution and established a Church that functions as its final interpreter.<BR/><BR/>[BTW, if you want to know where Tradition fits in, that would be analogous to the Common Law which was a body of decisions that provided precedents for the Court to use to interpret the Constitution.] <BR/><BR/>In short, your citation does not contradict the points I raised nor does my view of the authority of Scriptures and the authority of the Church differ from what Pope Pius XII approved.<BR/><BR/>God Bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18313535488105428662009-01-14T17:28:00.000-05:002009-01-14T17:28:00.000-05:00no Catholic would claim that the Church is superio...<I>no Catholic would claim that the Church is superior in authority to Scripture</I><BR/><BR/>Well, maybe some would:<BR/><BR/>"In regard to these truth [faith and morals] the authority of Tradition and of the Bible is equal...Nevertheless, as we shall see later, <STRONG>the Church is superior to the Bible</STRONG> in the sense that she is the Living Voice of Christ, and therefore the sole infallible interpreter of the inspired Word, whenever an authoritative interpretation is required."<BR><BR>-<EM><STRONG>A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture</STRONG></EM>, 1951 (pg 2) with imprimatur and acknowledgment of Pope Pius XIICarriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87824421361618513592009-01-11T05:13:00.000-05:002009-01-11T05:13:00.000-05:00Don't mean to interrupt the flow between Rhology,P...Don't mean to interrupt the flow between Rhology,Paul,EBW but Matt wrote:<BR/>"So, if this is the case, how can Banez square his position with Trent, which says that the will is involved because it can resist grace. Well, more research is needed, but, as far as I have seen thus far, Banez says that God's grace, while intrinsically efficacious and infallible in its effect, works with/upon human beings in a way suitable to them."<BR/><BR/>Matt, I'm guessing you've read Predestination by Garrigou-Lagrange? IIRC does he not mention that the Thomist view of intrinsically efficacious grace holds that the will *could* and does have the power to resist it, but it infallibly will not and infallibly will freely consent (hence it is intrinsically efficacious and consonant with Thomas' view of predilection) and thus still falls within parameters of Trent? I believe he uses the example of a seated man retaining real power to rise, distinguishing between power to resist and actual resistance. I am not sure if that is what you might have been getting at with your second sentence, or maybe I'm misremembering what GL said and you disagree and think there's a better synthesis from what you've read of the Thomists/Dominicans.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, canon 4 of the sixth session was prepared by Soto, a Thomist, fwiw.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211478133160497647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2575773504896580482009-01-10T04:59:00.000-05:002009-01-10T04:59:00.000-05:00Rhology,I am reading John 14-16 slowly to find tho...Rhology,<BR/>I am reading John 14-16 slowly to find those insights. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57162656165501425602009-01-09T08:29:00.000-05:002009-01-09T08:29:00.000-05:00EBW,B/c He didn't want to. :-) John 14-16 has a ...EBW,<BR/>B/c He didn't want to. :-) John 14-16 has a lot of insight into that as well. <BR/><BR/>Paul,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for those citations. I didn't see anything in there that warrants the "However" of "However, you must read it in context".Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29693788049961108562009-01-08T22:00:00.000-05:002009-01-08T22:00:00.000-05:00Hi Rhology: I enjoyed the quote from St. Hilary. ...Hi Rhology: I enjoyed the quote from St. Hilary. However, you have to read that quote in the context of everything he wrote. Here are two more for you from the same book: <BR/><BR/>"But I trust that the Church, by the light of her doctrine, will so enlighten the world's vain wisdom, that, even though it accept not the mystery of the faith, it will recognise that in our conflict with heretics we, and not they, are the true representatives of that mystery. For great is the force of truth; not only is it its own sufficient witness, but the more it is assailed the more evident it becomes; the daily shocks which it receives only increase its inherent stability. It is the peculiar property of the Church that when she is buffeted she is triumphant, when she is assaulted with argument she proves herself in the right, when she is deserted by her supporters she holds the field. It is her wish that all men should remain at her side and in her bosom; if it lay with her, none would become unworthy to abide under the shelter of that august mother, none would be cast out or suffered to depart from her calm retreat. But when heretics desert her or she expels them, the loss she endures, in that she cannot save them, is compensated by an increased assurance that she alone can offer bliss. This is a truth which the passionate zeal of rival heresies brings into the clearest prominence. The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her; and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph which the Church celebrates over them all. Each heresy wields against its adversary some weapon already shattered, in another instance, by the Church's condemnation. There is no point of union between them, and the outcome of their internecine struggles is the confirmation of the faith."<BR/><BR/>On the Trinity. Book 7, Chapter 4<BR/><BR/>"The words in which we speak of the things of God must be used in no mere human and worldly sense, nor must the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be extorted from the soundness of heavenly words by any violent and headstrong preaching. Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God."<BR/><BR/>On the Trinity Bk 8, Chapter 14.<BR/><BR/>God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-53719926713847746982009-01-08T18:09:00.000-05:002009-01-08T18:09:00.000-05:00Rhology, Thanks for your response. I am familiar w...Rhology, Thanks for your response. I am familiar with the standard explanation. I posted the original question just to get some opinions about why Jesus, as the Son-Incarnate did not put pen to paper? Any thoughts on why? Also, any thoughts on the Inspiration of the last portion of Mark 16 ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-5640968997541492582009-01-08T08:40:00.000-05:002009-01-08T08:40:00.000-05:00Hi EBW,Welcome to the blogosphere! Are you famili...Hi EBW,<BR/><BR/>Welcome to the blogosphere! <BR/>Are you familiar with the standard explanation of the inspiration of Scripture? <BR/>2 Pet 1:21 - "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". Men actually put pen to paper, but the Holy Spirit was carrying them along and ensuring their words would be w/o error and would have unusual insight into God and His redemptive history and works, etc. So Jesus, being God, attributes the men to the books, when He could just as easily attribute the books to God, and indeed Jesus did also do just that: <BR/>Matt 22:31 - But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God...? Then He goes on to quote Scripture.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul:<BR/>Let me react to what you said:<BR/><I>no Catholic would claim that the Church is superior in authority to Scripture</I><BR/><BR/>1) I assume you mean that no educated RC who agrees with RC official dogma, since I've met numerous RCs in real life who care nary a whit for what the Vatican says or what Catholic Answers says. So, that's just a friendly reminder to be careful about how you say stuff like that. I've had to learn it too! :-)<BR/>2) Functionally, in practice, however, I do not agree. The Scr says what RCC says it says in the conservative RC model, and that puts the RCC above the Scr. "The RCC is the Mother of the Bible", and all that.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>the authority of Scripture is not evident in and of itself. </I><BR/><BR/>Hopefully you will say that about the church as well! <BR/>And this is not Jesus' view of the Scr at all.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Scripture is authoritative because the Church appeals to it as its highest authority.</I><BR/><BR/>How do this statement and the statement "The RCC is the Mother of the Bible" harmonise?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>But it is true to say that we should not be conscious of this authority if the Church did not assure us of its existence.</I><BR/><BR/>And what is it about the Church that makes its authority "evident in and of itself", as you said?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It is the Church that assures us, for example, that the epistle of St. Jude has a higher authority than that of the epistle attributed to St. Barnabas</I><BR/><BR/>I am far more comfortable attributing that job to the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>it would have been possible for God to have given us a revelation in Scripture so completely and so unmistakably that the teaching office of the Church would have been unnecessary</I><BR/><BR/>Which He did. The teaching office of the church is completely superfluous anyway, in theory and even moreso in practice given that it virtually never makes pronouncements that can be identified as infallible.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>we know that God did not do that as amply shown by the existence of your own blog</I><BR/><BR/>Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): For there have risen many who have given to the plain words of Holy Writ some arbitrary interpretation of their own, instead of its true and only sense, and this in defiance of the clear meaning of words. Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written; the guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text. Is not truth indestructible? (NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book II, §3)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>In contrast to what you may think of the doctrine of infallibility, Catholics do not believe that infallibility means that the Church will not err in everything it does</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I know that.<BR/>However, this distinction is hamstrung by the paucity of Magisterial statements that can be identified as infallible, much less infallibly identified as infallible. You don't even have a completed canon of Scr, much less a canon of your infallible teachings, much less even than that an infallible canon of your infallible teachings.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks for your time!<BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79212633680399713572009-01-07T23:39:00.000-05:002009-01-07T23:39:00.000-05:00(I am reposting a corrected version of my last com...(I am reposting a corrected version of my last comment because it contained a sentence that was uncharitable) <BR/><BR/>Hello Rhology. I apologize about not answering all of the questions you asked me. You asked: "How does it follow that the ch is therefore superior in authority to the Scr or that the ch is infallible?"<BR/><BR/>A. Let's be clear on a couple of things. First, no Catholic would claim that the Church is superior in authority to Scripture. Both derive their authority from God. We do not say that the Scriptures depend upon the Church for its authority. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and thus, is free from error. <BR/><BR/>However, the authority of Scripture is not evident in and of itself. Scripture is authoritative because the Church appeals to it as its highest authority. As Father Knox states, "But it is true to say that we should not be conscious of this authority if the Church did not assure us of its existence. In the order of our knowledge, belief in the Church is antecedent to belief in Scripture, and is the condition of it. Historical criticism assures us, indeed, that the books of the New Testament are veracious in their main outline, but only revelation could make us confident in the belief that they have God as their author. It is the Church that assures us, for example, that the epistle of St. Jude has a higher authority than that of the epistle attributed to St. Barnabas; it is the Church, further, that assures us that St. Jude wrote under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit."<BR/><BR/>Likewise, as pointed out by Father Searle in his book that Carrie critiqued here, it would have been possible for God to have given us a revelation in Scripture so completely and so unmistakably that the teaching office of the Church would have been unnecessary—the Church would have been able to confine herself to asserting the authenticity and veracity of Scripture without further comment. <BR/><BR/>However, we know that God did not do that as amply shown by the existence of your own blog. The fact that folks like yourselves, Professor White and Turretinfan all feel it necessary to write and explain doctrines and distinctives you believe are found in Scriptures that others do not demonstrates to me as clearly as any Magisterial pronouncement that God did not reveal the Scriptures in the way you suggest.<BR/><BR/>Instead, we Catholics believe that Christ invested the primary authority to teach what the Scriptures mean in His Church and gave that Church the final authority to decide what the Scriptures mean when folks of good will who all believe in the veracity of Scripture do dispute over their meaning. In contrast to what you may think of the doctrine of infallibility, Catholics do not believe that infallibility means that the Church will not err in everything it does; it merely means that God will not allow His Church to err when it authoritatively interprets His Word or applies it to matters of faith and morals. God does not inspire the Church like He did the writers of the Scriptures, rather we believe that God guides the Church. Again Father Knox, "The difference between inspiration and guidance is the difference between a schoolmaster who should control the hand of a pupil while he wrote, and that of a schoolmaster who should stand by, ready to intervene if he saw him about to go wrong." <BR/><BR/>I hope that helps answers your questions. God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26010163866962204762009-01-07T22:00:00.000-05:002009-01-07T22:00:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40469951735153719222009-01-07T20:50:00.000-05:002009-01-07T20:50:00.000-05:00I thought answers were false. Fine. God wrote the ...I thought answers were false. Fine. God wrote the Bible. Is this more accurate...Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me (Jesus)in the Law of God,the God(s)and the God(s). NIV Luke 24:44. Remember 'types' Law of MOSES, Prophets (Ezra), Psalms (David). Why are these names attributed to what God wrote?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84581689138414567742009-01-07T19:58:00.000-05:002009-01-07T19:58:00.000-05:00Why did Jesus, who was the anti-type of these thre...<I>Why did Jesus, who was the anti-type of these three, not author a single word of scripture as these 'types'?</I><BR/><BR/>False question. God wrote the entire Bible.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-17088053069314374292009-01-07T19:48:00.000-05:002009-01-07T19:48:00.000-05:00Hello everyone. This is my first time on a blog. B...Hello everyone. This is my first time on a blog. Be patient. At the request of a friend, I am enter the "blog world". More reading than writing at first. Thanks for having me.<BR/><BR/>Carrie, Jesus Christ is the Prophet-Priest-King appointed by the Father and anointed by the Spirit. Assume typology is true (to some extent), then we could say Moses-Ezra-David are types of Christ. Notice how each one has made profound contributions to what we Christians call 'Scripture'. Why did Jesus, who was the anti-type of these three, not author a single word of scripture as these 'types'?<BR/>Thanks for your consideration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82321719617707056602009-01-07T13:23:00.000-05:002009-01-07T13:23:00.000-05:00Hi Rhology: you said, "John 10 doesn't say that th...Hi Rhology: you said, "John 10 doesn't say that the shepherd raised them. It doesn't say how they learned to recognise the shepherd's voice, so it's eisegesis to say that "that was done in the sheepfold, the Church"." <BR/><BR/>My response, it is not eisegesis to try to discern what Christ was saying by utilizing my understanding of Jewish 1st century AD agrarian culture and my knowledge (albeit limited) of animal husbandry (I grew up in rural small town Ohio where a number of my uncles and cousins farm and raise livestock, including sheep. One of my ancestors was the first to bring Merino sheep to the US.) That is called hermeneutics. How can one properly understand the passage without knowing how shepherds shepherd? <BR/><BR/>As far as 2 Tim 3:16 goes, it says that all Scripture is inspired. That is true. It does not state that all of the Scriptures were provided to us in the same manner that God made His covenant with Abraham at Hebrews 6:13. They weren't. God used intermediaries to write down what God inspired them to say.<BR/><BR/>BTW if I tied two passages like the way you are trying to do, I would have quoted 2 Tim 3:15 to bolster my argument about how the sheep learned to know Christ's voice. <BR/><BR/>I am aware the straw man argument that White uses in an effort to minimize the role the Church with His Canon (1)/Canon (2) distinction. Perhaps there is some nuance that you are aware of that is not contained in His work "Scripture Alone." I do not know how you can believe that White's argument can work when it is contradicted by clear references to the contrary in passages like Eph. 3:9-10. God either enlightens all men of His manifold wisdom through His Church or St. Paul was wrong, thus giving one indication that Ephesians is not Scripture. As a Catholic, I believe He does reaveal truth without error through His Church just like St. Paul says.<BR/><BR/>God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75148050080607543592009-01-07T08:28:00.000-05:002009-01-07T08:28:00.000-05:00Paul,John 10 doesn't say that the shepherd raised ...Paul,<BR/><BR/>John 10 doesn't say that the shepherd raised them. It doesn't say how they learned to recognise the shepherd's voice, so it's eisegesis to say that "that was done in the sheepfold, the Church". <BR/><BR/><BR/>Heb 6:13 - when God speaks, there is no one greater by whom to verify or test the statement. Agreed?<BR/>2 Tim 3:16 - the Scr is God speaking. There you go. <BR/><BR/>So you believe that God would reveal Himself in holy books and then NOT make sure that His people know which ones they are?<BR/>Oh wait, I guess you do - your church can provide neither a set Canon of Scr nor a set Canon of its own infallible teachings. Never mind. Anyway, I'm sure you're familiar with James White's Canon(1) and Canon(2) argument. <BR/><BR/>And yes, God used the church to understand what the Scr is, of course. Who else? The church is God's people. How does it follow that the ch is therefore superior in authority to the Scr or that the ch is infallible?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57125371606898245562009-01-06T21:35:00.000-05:002009-01-06T21:35:00.000-05:00Hi Rhology, re: John 10:3...the passage clearly sh...Hi Rhology, re: John 10:3...the passage clearly shows the Shepherd calling the sheep out of the sheepfold to follow him to pasture. <BR/><BR/>Your problem with interpreting this passage is the fact that you are trying to force some sort of meaning that isn't there. The audience to whom Jesus was speaking understood what he was talking about because they understood animal husbandry. Sheep are very intelligent, gregarious animals. They are capable of learning to recognize voices and faces of humans through familiarity and trust. <BR/><BR/>The reason the sheep recognize the shepherd's voice in John is because the shepherd raised them, nutured them and protected them. They learned to recognize the Shepherd's voice and His face. That was done in the sheepfold, i.e the Church. <BR/><BR/>As far as Heb. 6:13, I do not disagree that God can seal His covenants such as the one He made with Abraham with a vow on His own certitude, but you haven't made the case that God vouched for the rest of Scriptures using that particular method of verification. Why do we not see at the end of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans a paragraph from God vowing that St. Paul's words are His? Show me where God covenanted with us that all of the books of the Bible, whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, are His Scriptures and then seal their veracity a vow on His own certitude. <BR/><BR/>In contrast, the NT does show in several places that God appointed a Church to do that in His stead. See for example, Eph. 3:10. Such a view is consistent with how Catholics view the means God gave us to recognize the books that comprise Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Again, let me be clear, I agree with you that God gave us the means to recognize divine Scripture, we only disagree on what those means are. <BR/><BR/>God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com