Debate on Justification by Sungenis and White

This is an older dabte which consists of 25 videos. You can get the whole debate at youtube.

Pope's statements on evangelism

http://www.christlife.org/resources/articles/popequote.html   The Pope's statements on evangelism

This explains what has happened to the RC

 This helps to explain, perhaps, what has happened in the liberal RC. However this guy is a bit weird in some of his other beliefs so it makes one wonder if he is trustworthy. However I like what Armstrong says here and it may apply to Sungenis (who is speaking in this video): Traditionalists" (especially of the more radical type) are not more consistent than regular old "orthodox Catholics" like myself (whom they sometimes disdainfully call "neo-Catholics"), who accept all that the Church teaches. To the contrary, they are quite inconsistent. They want to remain Catholic, but pick and choose what doctrines they will accept and which they will reject (what we call "cafeteria Catholics"): precisely as Catholic liberals do, and what Luther did to start his revolt, and what Protestants do today. They put themselves in the driver's seat, judging popes and councils alike with impunity, which is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It's a liberal and Protestant notion of private judgment.

Last Supper and its relation to Passover

Here is an interesting article which tries to figure out the relationship of the synoptic gospels and John---it discusses Passover and its relationship too: http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Last-Supper-Passover-Meal

More found at this site: http://www.brantpitre.com/excerpts.html

New Testament references to the DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS

This link gives references made in the New Testament to the Deuterocanonical books--some of these I find to be valid and some are not--but there are enough valid ones to show the point.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Some examples of references to deuterocanonical books

Sirach 28::2 "Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray....5. If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath, will he then seek forgiveness from God?...

Romans 9:21---"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose andanother fo an ignoble one?"
Wisdom 15:7---"For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: both the vessels that serve for clean purposes, and their opposites, all alike; as to what shall be the use of each vessel of eiother class, the worker in clay is the judge."

A few others: I Peter 1:6,7= Wisdom 3:5,6

Luke 5:37-39=Sirach 9:10

James 1:19= Sirach 15:11

James 1:13- Sirach 15:11,12

Mark 11:25=Sirach 28:2

Matthew 27:43=Psalm 22:9 and Wisdom 2:18

check out the following--that I found at comment  326     here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 – if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 – Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 – description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 – Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 – Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 – Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 – the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 – Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 – all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 – who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 – Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 – Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 – the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 – branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 – Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 – leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 – Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 – description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 – Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 – specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 – the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 – this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 – Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 – description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 – usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 – Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 – warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 – Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 – Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 – what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 – if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 – Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 – Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 – in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 – Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 – Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 – Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 – Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 – the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 – let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 – James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 – describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 – condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 – Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 – God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 – God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 – God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 – power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 – reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 – God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 – prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 – raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 – raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 – the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 – description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 – the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 – the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 – description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 – the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 – do not slay the innocent and righteous – Dan. 13:53 – do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

2 Tim. 3:16 – the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., council of Jamnia in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Orthodox and Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council who rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament!"

and from the next comment:

The Book of Wisdom
Chapter 2 -12-24

12 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15
Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
16
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”
21
These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22
And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.
23
For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.
24
But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.

more on the canon

And I take it you understand what primary argument I give: absent a living, ecclesial authority that is divinely protected from error under certain conditions, there is no principled way to distinguish authentic expressions of divine revelation as such, and thus the once-for-all deposit of faith as such, from mere human opinions about what those are. [from comment 71 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/st-paul-on-justification/]

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/

one comment from the above link-comment  766:

In reply to Don, you asked, “Do you think the church illumines scripture to us or the Spirit? Or are you claiming the Roman church is the Spirit of God?”

That is not the way to understand it.

The Holy Spirit, in order to lead Christians into all truth, must have a method or a medium: He must lead us somehow. He cannot lead us by doing nothing or by interacting with us in no way; rather, he must interact with us in some way.

In order to identify the activity of the Holy Spirit leading the faithful towards a particular truth or away from a particular falsehood, one must be aware of the way that he normally does this. What does it normally look like?

Various people have proposed different ways that the Holy Spirit normally does this. And for some of these proposals, the claim is that such-and-such a way is not a new thing, but has in fact been the practice of the Church since the beginning.

But all Christians, whatever way they propose that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, argue that Christianity is a knowable religion. Christianity is not some faith which Jesus taught to the apostles but which is now unrecoverably lost in the mists of time. Instead, we all agree that some way exists toknow the truths of faith and morals which God desires us to know.

So, when a many different methodologies for knowing these things are proposed to us, certain tests can help us distinguish the false methodologies from the true:

1. Can this methodology, even in principle, permit us to know (not merely with confidence, but withwarranted confidence) the truths of faith and morals which God desires us to know? (NOTE: I say “permit,” not “compel.” Why “permit?” Because having an authoritative and trustworthy source for truth makes it possible to know what that source teaches…but does not overwhelm the free will of an individual so as to compel them to accept it. We can be confident that many will; but there are “weeds sown among the wheat” and so we know that some will not. So we are not asking whether all of the persons who could accept truth via this methodology in fact opt to do so, but rather whether the methodology even gives them the option. A methodology that does not even give an answer when it is followed will, in the end, deny the follower the option of agreeing or disagreeing, for he does not even know with what to agree or disagree.)

2. Has the use of this methodology produced doctrinal unity amongst its followers across all divisions of culture, of politics, of nationality, and most importantly, across time, in every era of Christianity? For we know that if the gates of hell have not prevailed, then orthodox Christians have existed in all eras since the Ascension. If we find that a methodology produces a candidate “Christianity” which had no detectable following in, say, the period from 300 to 400 AD, or 700 to 800, then that methodology is suspect.

3. Was this methodology plausibly usable by Christians in the year 50, the year 100, the year 150, the year 200, the year 250, et cetera, all the way from the Ascension of Our Lord to the present?

4. Was this methodology actually used, so far as we can tell, in the year 50, the year 100, et cetera, so far as the historical record allows us to determine?

5. Does this methodology avoid contradicting itself, or does it, whatever its other purported benefits, require a person to ignore glaring internal contradictions?

Now, the Protestant holds that our methodology, our “way to know the Christian faith,” is something like this: God divinely-inspired 66 books. The Holy Spirit guides the readers of these books to understand them correctly. Therefore, by reading these books under the influence of the Holy Spirit, readers will correctly understand the Christian faith and come to know the things which God intends them to know about faith and morals.

…pause for a moment…

Any good Protestant, seeing my description of the Protestant methodology, will object at this point: “Whoa, that’s way, way oversimplified!” And of course I agree: That version is absurd in a variety of cases: What if the Christian in question can’t read? What about translation errors? What about the need to understand historical context and cultural assumptions?

All of these caveats may be introduced into the overly-simple description in the form of qualifications, in order to make it more accurate. The improved result will be something like this: “God divinely-inspired 66 books. The Holy Spirit guides the readers of these books to understand them correctly,provided that they (list of qualifications and criteria goes here). Therefore, by reading these books under the influence of the Holy Spirit, readers (with the formerly-listed qualifications and criteria) will correctly understand the Christian faith and come to know the things which God intends them to know about faith and morals.”

And of course we can make guesses about what the qualifications should be: That they are sincere and not trying to avoid the truth; that they really ask the Holy Spirit for guidance; that they obtain whatever knowledge of culture and language is practically available to them to understand the text as well as possible; that they select a local church body for correct doctrinal and not for mere aesthetic reasons and submit to its authority on matters they don’t understand — and that the elders/deacons/pastor/bishops of that local church body are themselves being sincere and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance and are adequately-informed…et cetera, et cetera, et alia, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Now, the Catholic critique of all of this is: No matter how carefully you specify the criteria and qualifications, this methodology actually doesn’t pass any of the five tests listed above.

It doesn’t plausibly offer a way to know what Christianity really is. It doesn’t actually produce agreement about what Christianity is. It couldn’t plausibly have been used during the Apostolic and Early Patristic era. It wasn’t, as a matter of historical evidence, used during the Apostolic and Early Patristic era. And it logically contradicts itself in a variety of ways.

In short, if that is the actual Christian doctrine for knowing what Christian doctrine is, then Christianity is a lost topic, buried in the dust of history, inaccessible to us. We can reconstruct it from the scraps of evidence we have, but the available evidence is able to be interpreted in so many ways that, while some reconstructions will resemble others in some ways, they’ll all differ in other ways, leaving anyone possessing intellectual humility in varying amounts of doubt about nearly every topic.

And if that is what Jesus proposed to the Apostles as His intended way for us to “remain one” just as He and the Father are one, then He is not God, or even a particularly wise student of history and human nature. And in that case, we’d all best pack up our hymnals and sleep in on Sundays.

But He is God. So we need to look elsewhere for our methodology.

Now the Catholic alternative — what you were asking Don about — is more like this:

Jesus did not instruct the Apostles to write the 27 books of the New Testament or even to put particular effort into spreading the Old Testament throughout the world. Instead, He installed them by His own authority into offices of authority. Part of the nature of these offices was that they were offices which (a.) could be increased in number as the Church grew, and (b.) had successors, when the current occupants died or were removed.

The authority He gave to those holding those offices included authority to resolve disputes about faith and morals in the name of the Church, and in His name. This is the meaning of such verses as, “He who hears you, hears Me” and “if they refuse to listen even to the Church, then you shall treat them as a pagan or a tax collector.” By “listening to the Church,” Jesus meant, “listening to those who are in offices of authority such that, when they pronounce their judgment on a matter of faith or morals FOR the whole Church, they are to be understood as The Whole Body Of Christ Speaking Definitively On That Matter.” And since nothing in the Old Covenant is merely abrogated in the New, but is instead fulfilled in some more glorious fashion, these offices fulfill for the New Covenant the priestly and stewardly and fatherly character of various offices of authority in the old, with priests operating under the High Priest, stewards operating as vicars of the King, and fathers of households and tribes — or a diocese — operating under the One God and Father of Us All, from whom all earthly fatherhood stems.

Now it is in this context that the role of the Holy Spirit in “leading us into all truth” comes into play. No Catholic denies that the Holy Spirit might use extraordinary ways to lead individuals to the truth in certain circumstances, and that this could include an interior illumination which comes from reading the Scriptures. But this is not the normal way for Christians, as a family and community and nation, to be “led into all truth.”

Rather, Jesus grants to those whom He placed in authority, and to their successors, a special gift of the Holy Spirit which operates when they make decisions as a unified whole (i.e., when they make decisions as “The Church”). The nature of the gift is: “Whatsoever you (collectively) bind on earth, is bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth, is loosed in Heaven.” Just as the nature of the Old Covenant offices fulfilled in these New Covenant offices is variously priestly or stewardly or rabbinical or prophetic or fatherly, so we see this notion of “binding or loosing” (or, “locking or unlocking”, or “opening and shutting”) in all of those Old Covenant roles brought forward and fulfilled more gloriously in the New. In the Old Covenant, a priest could include or exclude someone from the community. A rabbi could “bind or loose” the permissibility of a particular behavior according to his teaching. A steward could issue laws and decrees within his realm of authority under the Davidic king…and so on. Likewise, in the New Covenant, these new leadership offices can excommunicate or restore to communion; they can teach that something is immoral or permissible; they can instruct the faithful in their diocese to fast on Tuesdays and Thursdays or on Wednesdays and Fridays. (But this is more glorious, because what the Church binds on earth is bound in Heaven.)

Now, logic dictates that if every Christian infallibly teaches correctly on faith and morals, they will all agree…but, also, they will all not need one another for anything. There will be no need of visible unity among them; they can each individually read the Bible and although they may all say the same thing about what it means, they will do so as individuals. Each member of the Body of Christ would, in such a system, be truly able to say to every other member, “I have no need of you.” This is the kind of ecclesiology we would expect in a sort of world of octopi, where every member was connected directly to the head. But that is not our world, as we know (a.) from the shape of our bodies, where a finger is connect to the head only through the hand and arm and shoulder and neck; and (b.) from the fact that all Bible-reading individuals do NOT, in fact, infallibly agree about its meaning.

Likewise, if every bishop infallibly teaches correctly on faith and morals, they will all agree…but also, they will not all need one another for anything. There would be no need of visible unity among bishops; they could each individually interpret the Apostolic Tradition (including the Scriptures) to the faithful in their diocese, and although they might all say the same thing about what it means, they will do so as individuals. Again, this would be an octopus-world. But our world is not that way: Jesus became a human, not an octopus, and the human body is hierarchical, like a directory-tree on a modern computer. And bishops do not, in fact, always agree…so we know by experience that THAT is not how the Holy Spirit leads us.

How, then, will “The Church” rule as a worldwide whole, when it exerts its authority according to Matthew 18? How will we know that the organization as a whole has spoken (with its guarantee of Heavenly agreement/ratification), and not just some subset of its bishops?

The answer to that is found in an Old Covenant office, the al bayith or “Chief Steward” or “Head of House.” The role of this steward, under the king, is described in Isaiah 22, and the first occupant of the New Covenant office fulfilling this role is installed into the position in Matthew 16. This office is similar to that of the other stewards except in certain critical details: (1.) He is said to have the “keys of the house/dynasty of the king”; and (2.) he can “bind/loose” what has been “loosed/bound” by other stewards; but what he “binds/looses” cannot be “loosed/bound” by other stewards. Thus, whenever the king is out-of-town or otherwise occupied, the Chief Steward serves as a sort of tie-breaker or final court-of-appeal on matters about which the other stewards might disagree.

As a consequence, this stewardly office — and its New Covenant fulfillment, the office of the successor of Peter — is crucial to “The Church” as a whole being able to pronounce any final decisions on matters of faith and morals. If a priest, or a collection of priests, asserts that “XYZ is true,” that is not yet “The Church.” And if an objector should happen to appeal the matter to his bishop, even that bishop’s assertion that “XYZ is true” is not yet “The Church” speaking as a whole. But if the “binding/loosing” is appealed to the successor of Peter, and he definitively binds “XYZ is true” with the intent of teaching the whole church, then his “binding/loosing” cannot be “loosed/bound” by any other bishop — just like the Stewards of the House of David. Or, as they used to say in the Patristic era: “Roma locuta, causa finita est.”

Now, of course, another way for the Whole Church to teach something (and thereby have the special guarantee of their binding/loosing being “bound in Heaven”) is for all, or at least a large sampling, of the bishops to gather in an ecumenical council. But even then, the Chief Steward’s office has a role: If a crowd of Arian bishops get together claiming to be an ecumenical council, excluding the orthodox, it’s the successor of Peter who’ll say, “no, that’s not a real ecumencial council.” Once that office has ratified the council as “the real deal,” we know that it is “the real deal” for, as previously stated, no other bishop can loose what the Petrine officeholder has bound.

So this, then, is the shape of the answer Catholics give to how the Holy Spirit leads us into truth: The Church decides disputed matters of faith and morals, and when the authority structures of the Church decide in a fashion which is beyond further appeal, then the decision, being final, is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, so that Heaven can be “safe” (if that is the right way to put it) in binding whatever the Church has bound, or in loosing whatever the Church has loosed. The bishops collectively have a role, and in order that there might be finality and unity the successor of Peter has a role.

All Christians, of course, believe in a gift from the Holy Spirit which guarantees a human church-leader the ability to teach without error. The Apostles used this gift in their teaching, which was always correct, whether delivered “by word of mouth or letter.” Since the New Testament books are either written by Apostles or persons writing on their behalf what they wished written, those books are inerrant. But the Church remains an infallible teacher even after the time of the Apostles through the authority given to her by Christ.

Please note that this methodology works throughout Christian history, including the day after the Ascension, when the New Testament books were unwritten, and the day after the death of the last Apostle, when the New Testament books were written but not uniformly disseminated and the canon still uncertain.

And it still works today when men read the words of the Apostles in the New Testament and misunderstand them, or neglect to heed the full Apostolic Tradition because this-or-that aspect of the Apostles’ teaching is non-obvious or ambiguous in the New Testament texts themselves. When that happens, the usual action of the Church is to remind the faithful of the full teaching; and to rule that the Scriptures may not be construed so as to contradict it. (This, you’ll note, doesn’t usually leave open only a single way to construe them; it just prohibits a particular way.)

So. Where does that leave us?

Mainly, it leaves us with a methodology of knowing what truth the Holy Spirit intends to lead us into. And, that methodology passes the various tests which such a methodology must pass in order to be a plausible candidate for what Christ intended us to use.

It can, in principle, work; it does, in practice, permit doctrinal unity: It gives information which can be KNOWN to be the information produced by that methodology.

It also seems to have worked historically: Those who followed it, agreed with its findings — sometimes in the teeth of their instincts or their own initial incomprehension! Those who held other views, held them only by not following that methodology. And there were no periods when “orthodox Christianity” (as determined by this methodology) inexplicably vanished from the earth for hundreds of years.

It was usable in every era, and was used in every era. And, it does not contradict itself logically.

Kevin, does that answer your question?

Certainly it should answer the following items you raised:

No, “1 John 2:27″ does not teach that anybody and everybody can correctly interpret Scripture inerrantly without benefit of a human teacher, for if it did, the obvious historical falseness of the claim would prove 1 John to not be written with inerrancy, and thus not of Apostolic origin — or else would prove that Apostles could teach wrongly, which really would mean that true Christianity stopped with Jesus Himself and is lost in the mists of time.

No, Catholics do not claim that “the Roman church is the Spirit of God” but only that the Holy Spirit uses the Magisterial authority of the Body of Christ to teach without error and that this is the normal way by which the Holy Spirit leads us to the truth (although He can also use extraordinary means if He chooses).

No, the reason the New Testament books were being used by Christians, when they got hold of them, was not because “it was determined by Spirit filled believers” in general (implying that any old layperson with the Spirit could determine it) but rather because those occupying the offices which Christ instituted for determining such things taught the canon to the faithful when the time was right to do so. (And the faithful, knowing that those offices were instituted and graced for that purpose, naturally took this to be information which was bound in Heaven even as it was bound on earth. Thus debate about the canon ceased and did not seriously recur for over a thousand years.)

And, No, one need not deny “that the men who were using those scriptures [were] Spirit Filled” in order to hold the Catholic view. One need only point out that men who are devout, living holy lives, with impeccable scholarly credentials, and self-evidently Spirit Filled do not, thereby, gain the charism of Inerrant Independent Biblical Interpretation. We know that they don’t have that charism, for if they did, they would all agree with one another. But they do not all agree with one another, so either they are being taught by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic (very doubtful!), or (as I believe) that is not one of the things the Holy Spirit happens to do, when “filling” them.

But if the Holy Spirit does not teach us to interpret the scriptures that way, then how does He do so? The answer is: By leading The Church to remember the Apostolic Faith and to teach it to us, and even to tease out from it further conclusions about it using the existing knowledge of the Apostolic Faith as a logician uses true premises to yield a true conclusion. The Church’s Magisterial voice is, in this fashion, the Holy Spirit’s tool-of-choice for “leading us into all truth.” For of course the Church is, actually, the Body of Christ; and her Magisterial voice is in that sense His mouth and His tongue, and it makes perfect sense that Jesus teaches without error.

Make sense?

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=28


another one here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/the-canon-made-impossible-ehrman-mcdowell-an-unlikely-agreement/


comment 379: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/#comment-38825 :

"It should not have been, but apparently is, necessary for me to highlight the relevant difference. Nobody claims, because nobody can claim, divinely bestowed authority to speak for and to Protestantsas such. Accordingly, your characterization of Protestantism is no more accurate normatively than it is empirically. But the pope and the bishops together do claim divinely bestowed authority to teach Catholics and speak for them as Catholics. So, while your point about liberal Catholics is true empirically, it is false normatively. With respect to divine revelation, Catholics can and do believe whatever their judgment dictates; whether that should be so or not, it is simply an empirical fact. But that is not what makes a Catholic a Catholic. What makes a Catholic a Catholic is that he believes, if only implicitly, whatever the Church teaches irreformably, with her full authority. If he conscientiously disbelieves something the Church so teaches, he is a bad Catholic by the only authoritative criteria there are for being Catholic, and many such people cease to consider themselves Catholic altogether. But if a Protestant conscientiously disbelieves something his church teaches, that does not make him a bad Protestant. He can and often does simply join another Protestant church that shares his beliefs. By thus following his own judgment, he is a good Protestant, not a bad one. So the fact that there are as many liberal Catholics as liberal Protestants does not put Catholicism and Protestantism on an epistemic par. Catholicism as such has authoritative norms for distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy; in Protestantism as such (as distinct from this-or-that Protestant church), there are no such norms. One church’s heretic is another church’s orthodox believer, and that’s that.

Addressing me, you write:

You use two terms: identity and interpretation. You seem to suggest that they are both “up for grabs.” I must confess I fail to see how the identity of divine revelation is up for grabs. I see how its interpretation is, but not its identity. Certainly there are Protestants who deny that Christ is the final revelation of God, as there are Catholics who do so. But that would not be a legitimate, officially endorsed position in any Protestant denomination.

You have misunderstood me once again, though perhaps I was being unclear. When I say that the “identity” of divine revelation is up for grabs among Protestants, I mean this: By their own principles, Protestants cannot claim that what counts as Scripture and/or Tradition, and thus as media of divine revelation’s transmission, can be identified without error. Thus, e.g., even R.C. Sproul, a rock-ribbed conservative Protestant, holds that Protestants have “a fallible canon of infallible books.” That entails that Christians only identify the canon as such fallibly. But if that’s the case, then there’s no reason in principle why books cannot be added to or subtracted from the canon if our conscientious, prayerful judgment calls for that. Indeed, if no body of Christians is divinely protected from error, then one cannot consistently hold that the belief that “the canon,” whatever it is, is divinely inspired is itself without error. On Protestant principles, the belief that the canon is divinely inspired might be just as wrong as the belief that the canon should be thought to consist of just these books and no others. Thus the very identity of divine revelation is up for grabs, even when few choose to grab.

You wrote:

Well, I knew as I typed that EO would probably be an option for you. I find it amazing that you say you could not be Christian and Protestant. If the Magisterium suddenly said: wait a second, contraception is OK, and you became disillusioned by their claim to be an authoritative infallible interpreter of revelation, you could not imagine that God has not in fact supplied such? That what he has given us are the Scriptures? That insisting that God gave more than these might be (I only say “might”) a case of being wiser than God?

If I lost faith in the Catholic Magisterium’s claims for itself–a possibility that is merely notional for me–I would become Orthodox, not Protestant. For philosophical reasons I’ve expounded at length elsewhere, if there is no living human authority which can rightly claim to be divinely protected from error when teaching under certain conditions, then we simply lack any principled means from distinguishing divine revelation from human opinion. What amazes me is that you seem to show no interest in why I believe that.

You say we have “the Scriptures.” But absent the sort of authority I’ve just described, both what qualifies as “the Scriptures” and their degree of authority is revisable in principle, whereas God’s revealed truth cannot be, if it is to be identifiable as such at all. I do not say that because I believe myself “wiser than God,” nor does the Catholic Church. It is precisely because we are so much less wiser than God that we need, and he has given, a clear way to distinguish his truth from our provisional and often errroneous opinions."

here comment 96 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#

 the 73 books of the Old Testament were consistently accepted as part of the Old Testament Canon at the Council of Rome 382, Council of Hippo 393 and Council of Carthage 397?

They didn’t find it necessary to officially declare those 73 books of the Old Testament as well as the 27 books that were likewise accepted as part of the New Testament Canon then in ecumenical council because these already had become universally accepted; therefore, to do so would’ve been moot.

and comment  128    here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/#comment-50154 :

 In reference to your first comment, regarding Lk 24:44 providing a clue about the normative shape of the OT scriptures: I’m willing to grant that Jesus’ statement could in theory provide a clue. But wouldn’t NT writers relying on the LXX rather than the Hebrew Bible be just as much a clue in the other direction? Furthermore, NT writers rely on books in the deuterocanon as well. Wisdom 2:12-20 is so closely aligned to the Passion Narratives of the synoptic Gospels the writers must have had it in mind; Paul alludes to Wisdom 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25; Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabbees 7, and so on. These are strong clues for LXX being canonical. However, I would suggest that looking for “clues” in the letters of the NT for which books to accept in the canon may not be the best way to define the canon. This is for several reasons. For one, we still haven’t addressed the question of what factors we use to determine which books should be in the NT, and what confidence we could have in those factors. Secondly, what is your basis for believing that individual Christians, rather than the institutional Church with authority from Christ, get to make the determinations of what is authentically the inspired, infallible Word of God? As I argue elsewhere in the paper, the perspective that scholars, even well meaning Christian scholars, get to determine authentic scripture, allows for a continual shift in what is believed to be God’s Word, as scholarly opinion changes with time. We’ve seen that already in the now widely held opinion, even among Christian scholars, that half of the Pauline epistles are pseudepigrapha. We’re seeing that also with scholars who argue parts of John 8 and Mark 16 are not authentic. This seems a very perilous foundation for determining scripture.

You argue that there is “no basis for the view that the Jews held to the authority of the Hebrew text because of the rise of Christianity’s use of LXX.” Unfortunately I am not in a place where I have access to my library, but I’d read from several historical sources exactly that the Church’s use of LXX was a contributing factor to their rejection of its use. The scholars I read explained that the Jewish religious leadership were desiring to keep their religion and practices pure, especially of Gentile and “Nazarene” influence. They believed their way of life increasingly threatened after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, in addition to the tremendous influence of Greek language and culture on many Jews, which was heightened by Christianity’s embrace of Gentiles, many of whom, after converting to Christianity, worshiped in the synagogue (see Robert Louis Wilken’s recent book “The First Thousand Years” and “Backgrounds of Early Christianity” by Everett Fergusson). If your argument is correct, I would be interested to know why the Jewish religious leadership would so strongly reject the LXX, despite its widespread use by Jews throughout the Roman Empire in the 1st century, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus and the NT writers were using it.

I’m not sure I follow your argument regarding Wisdom and Tobit. Are you saying that we should look to NT citation statistics to determine which Jewish books should be included in the canon? If that is your line of argumentation, there are a number of OT books in the Protestant canon that are never cited in the NT, such as Esther. But again, on what baisis would citation statistics be an authoritiative means of determining what is scripture? In reference to your claim that Wisdom and Tobit lacked the authority or antiquity of other OT books – what is your basis for this? I’m also unsure on what basis you argue that the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch is akin to Wisdom, Tobit, or other deuterocanonical books?

You also argue that because the last verses of Malachi are fulfilled in John the Baptists’ ministry, that this somehow negates any Jewish scriptures written after Malachi, because it fits best into your “eschatological” perspective on the canon. But why do you hold this position as normative? If as you argue, prophesy again begins with John and Jesus, who is to say when it ends? Or, who is to say which books should be in the NT, considered part of the new prophetic revelation, or not?

I agree with you that the issue is complex. But I do not agree that the dominant view in the early Church was the deuterocanonical books were viewed as helpful, but not normative. As I’ve argued above, the NT writers seemed to view the deuterocanonical books as authoritative. The early Church viewed them the same way. Quoting Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly:

“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

And finally, as I argued in #126, three Church councils in the 4th century recognized the deuterocanon as scripture. Together, these evidences make a strong case for the deuterocanon.

from comment 35 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/08/review-of-robert-louis-wilkens-the-first-thousand-years-a-global-history-of-christianity/ below

There was not, as you seem to propose, universal agreement in the early Church regarding what was or wasn’t scripture (consider the debates over the Didache, 1 Clement, Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation), just as within the varying Christian traditions today there is not uniformity in the contents of the entire canon. Even if there was, you seem to be suggesting that the criteria for determining was the consensus of a certain body of individuals claiming to be Christians. Yet that raises all sorts of problems, such as who decides which group of individuals claiming to be authentic Christians have the authority to recognize what is or isn’t canon? Gnostic communities believed themselves the true heirs of Christ’s teachings, and had their own set of scriptures (e.g. Gospel of Thomas). Why wouldn’t they have an equal say in determining the contents of the canon? If this is not the criteria you believe to be normative, what criteria are you using, and on what authority do you believe those criteria to be infallible, so that you are assured your criteria are indeed correct?

see also  http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

and from comment 51---go there to see the rest of the discussion found here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/#comment-121743

Thanks so much for writing. I have a few questions about your syllogism.

First of all, is #5 meant to be a conclusion or is it a premise? In either case, doesn’t it beg the question against the Catholic position?
Secondly, I think there is an ambiguity in #4. Do you mean to assert that “special revelation has been committed to writing,” or that “all special revelation has been committed to writing?

Next, you comment:

I think we can agree that God’s special revelation is to be the rule of faith for the church.

Actually, I don’t think that at all. This goes to the heart of the distinction between the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. It was this issue that made Newman (ultimately) into a Catholic as he learned from Edward Hawkins, the Anglican, that “the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church; for instance to the Catechism, and to the Creeds.” (Apologia pro vita sua)

And so, your next comment:

“So the disagreement is where the church finds special revelation.”

Actually misrepresents the nature of the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. There are Catholics who believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture. In these cases, “where revelation is to be found” is not at issue.

Finally,

“If it is Scripture plus x, you all should be able to tell me what x is. But no one can. All I get is “liturgy, witness of the fathers, etc.” I can’t even get an infallible list of everything Rome has thus far said is infallible dogma. And I’ve asked for this repeatedly,”

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. I think we have got some kind of misunderstanding. If I assert that Christ left authorities other than Scripture as, for example, the liturgy-as-bearer-of-divine-revelation [Do this in memory of me], what is ambiguous about that? Likewise, if I assert that apostolic authority – the power to bind and loose, as exercised in Acts 15, belongs to the Church such that the Church can define the contours of the deposit of faith, what is ambiguous about that?

It may be that you are thinking strictly in terms of doctrinal propositions – such as those contained in Scripture – and you are looking for a list of those “authoritative doctrines” laid down by tradition. If so, I think you are misconstruing the Catholic position. In the Catholic paradigm the doctrinal content of the faith is one thing – the power to define it, the vehicle of its transmission – is something else. For many Protestants, however, these ideas get conflated because they are used to thinking in terms of an authority that just is a collection of propositions.

So let’s disambiguate. In the Catholic paradigm, the power to define the contours of the faith – to bind and loose the conscience of believers, is held by the Church’s magisterium. Thus, the Nicene creed is not simply a summary of biblical teaching, deriving its authority in an entirely derivative way. Rather, the Nicene Creed possesses divine authority inherently, intrinsically, because it is proposed by the Church’s magisterium as an article of faith.

As far as a list of those binding decisions, I would point you to Denziger’s enchiridion, where he gives the list. I would also direct you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a summary and abbreviation.

I think another source of confusion is the Protestant habit of relating to the faith as a static body of propositions contained in Scripture instead of an historical event – the incarnation, the implications of which may be recognized in a developmental way over time. The spelling out of those implications in an authoritative way in the form of propositions is that task of the Magisterium and results in what we call dogma. The Catholic paradigm presupposes that future definitions of dogma may be necessary in ways the current generation may not anticipate. (Could the infant Church have anticipated Nicea?) So the demand for an exhaustive list of infallible dogmas misrepresents the Catholic approach to dogma. As a Catholic, I want an infallible Church – a living magisterium – that is able in every age to propose for me “what it is necessary to believe” in a way possessing divine authority.

In any event, I’d still like to discuss your take on WCF, if you could clarify those premises for me. So far, I haven’t found an articulation of Reformed doctrine that presents the conclusion “God intends these 66 to be the Church’s rule of faith” in a way that follows validly from premises grounded in revelation. Hence, my belief that the doctrine of sola scriptura is mere assertion, founded neither in Scripture nor any revelation, nor entailed by any rational argument.

thanks again,