Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

dizerner

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by dizerner » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:38 pm

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Mon Feb 20, 2023 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:12 am

Steve wrote:
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the scriptures, as the inspired word of God, are more trustworthy and authoritative than are the words of any man or men. Traditions of men, reasonings of men, and sentiments of men all stand corrected by the higher authority of the scriptures.

Sola Scriptura does not affirm that the scriptures are the only source of theological information, but that they trump all others, where there may be disagreement between them and any other pretended authority.
Actually, there is nothing in this definition and description of “sola Scriptura” which, in principle, is contrary to Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching also firmly affirms that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17, etc.), and, as such, the Scriptures are to be relied upon above any other supposed authority which contradicts Scripture. However, there is nothing in this definition which, to me, warrants the use of the adjective, “sola”. For, this definition seems to me to leave open the possibility of there being another source of Divine Revelation (eg., Apostolic Oral Tradition) and an interpretative authority of all Divine Revelation (eg., Magisterium/Teaching Authority of the Church). For, it is possible to have such authoritative sources of Divine Revelation (or interpretation of Divine Revelation) which would, in no way, contradict Sacred Scripture (but, to the contrary, would shed greater light on the very meaning of Scripture). This, indeed, is the Catholic position.

And dizerner wrote:
Deciding what is inspired and what is not, is something I think God's guidance should do for us each personally, and not other men. God does institute shepherds to guide people, but all to guide back to that One Shepherd of the sheep. We are told to trust in the power of God and not the sophistry of man. Scriptures must be fully self-authenticating to our hearts, without a pastor, bishop, or pope to tell us so—"I know my sheep and they follow me."
Certainly, the Holy Scriptures speak to each and every one of us (the ancient Catholic tradition of "Lectio Divina", the "Divine Reading (of the Scriptures)", is based on this belief that, in the Word of God, God is able to speak to each and every one of us and change our hearts in doing so). And, so, I suppose that, in theory, it would be possible, given enough grace (as well as knowledge and time for research), that each of us could discern for ourselves which Books are Inspired or not (for, certainly, God can, and does, give us moments of grace and light where we are able to clearly recognize certain of the Scriptures as being true and Inspired by Him). That said, I think it is an obvious fact that this theoretical possibility is a practical impossibility; for, it is practically impossible for any single one of us to be able to discern, on our own, exactly which Books are Inspired and which are not. Sure, we MIGHT be able to discern SOME Books right on our own, without the decision or help of others in the Christian community…but, certainly, barring what would have to be considered a true miracle of grace (and possibly of nature), there is no practical way we would be able to discern PRECISELY which Books belong in the Bible. For, think of what that would entail: It would entail going through all of the possible world literature that could possibly be Divinely Inspired and then, discerning, on our own, whether or not it actually is Inspired or not. Has there really been any one of us who has done, or even could do, such a thing (AND THEN, on top of that, find that “our Bible” which we discerned to contain all of the Divinely Inspired writings of the world perfectly matched what the rest of the Christian community considers to be “The Bible”)? This would mean combing through not only all of the apocrypha that is clearly silly, but, also, other works that seem very good and, actually, have nothing that is obviously wrong in them, but, nevertheless, were not Divinely Inspired (in the strict sense of that term) and are not considered by the Christian community to be such; eg., the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, or other Church Fathers from the Apostolic Age (and, for that matter, would we not have to consider good Christian writings from after the Apostolic age—for, if we are to decide this question of the Canon of Scripture on our own, why would we not consider the possibility that there could be some Divinely Inspired writings from beyond the Apostolic Age? Would we not have to consider the possibility that some works from Augustine, or Jerome, or others were Divinely Inspired? And this is not even to mention all the Hebrew literature from before the Incarnation...) Is it reasonable for any one of us to think that he can, on his own, discern which Books belong in the Bible when, in fact, prior to the Church's final decision on the Canon of the Bible, the question as to exactly which writings were Divinely Inspired was a question that was intensely debated by many men who were, almost certainly, much more wise, learned, and holier than any one of us? Has it not, rather, been the case that, in practice, each and every one of us has depended on some tradition within our respective Christian community to tell us exactly what the Bible even is?? This is, I firmly believe, certainly the case…thus, showing, that, in addition to relying on the Scriptures themselves for knowledge about God, we, at the very least, need to rely on some tradition to tell us what the Scriptures even are, what Books make up the Divine Scriptures. All this, thus, leads us to search for an authentic Tradition, together with an authentic Church Authority, that is able to tell us which Books belong in the Bible and which do not. I do not see how we can deny this practical fact of the Christian life…

God bless you all in this New Year.

In Christ, the Incarnate Word of God and the Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

dizerner

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by dizerner » Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:52 am

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Mon Feb 20, 2023 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:45 am

Dear dizerner,
I hope and pray you are well as we begin this new year!

Just to respond to a couple things you wrote...

First, you wrote:
I think you make a logical fallacy when you say we must read every book ever written to find something inspired. In a way, the book finds us, we don't find the book.
To say that the inspired Book finds us is true-- provided that we rely on the usual workings of God's Providence, which has provided us with a Christian community (and a Church) to lead us to the inspired Book. Think of your own experience. How did the "inspired Books find you"? Was it not because some Christian told you, "Hey, check out these Books-- they're inspired by God!" And, then you read them and said, "Hey, yea, you're right!" Without that someone telling you about the Bible and its Books, how else would the Bible "have found" you"?

Secondly, you wrote:
Obviously a book like the Koran has established itself as a holy book for millions of people. Should I assume therefore that men "smarter and holier" than myself decided this? No, of course not.
I agree that you should not assume that men wiser and holier than you have believed the Koran is inspired; but, why is that a fair statement to make? Is it not because the Koran is not held to be inspired by Christians (and we trust Christians in their judgment of what is inspired or not more than we trust Muslims)? In our deciding that the Koran is not inspired, does every Christian really sit down, read the Koran, and then decide that it is not inspired? For most Christians, that is not the case....Rather, do not most Christians simply rely on the judgment of the Christian community in which he is (and that community's tradition as to what is inspired), and then make the judgment that a Book such as the Koran is not inspired? I know that was how I made the judgment that the Koran is not inspired. And this is the case even if, since being told that the Koran is not inspired, I have read it and seen that it is contrary to the Faith-- but, even if I had NOT read the Koran, I still would not believe it is inspired; but, according to your principle that you cannot simply trust the judgment of other men, one would HAVE to read the Koran and then make a judgment for himself as to whether or not it is inspired (and have you yourself actually done this? By your principle, you would HAVE to do this, whereas I am saying you do NOT have to do this, for you can simply rely on the judgment of the sound Christian traditions that have been handed on to you which declare to you that the Koran, and other such books, are not inspired.)

Thirdly, you wrote:
If we don't attribute some kind of supernatural help or aide to our religious beliefs, what kind of religion do we have? Just something man-made.
Absolutely true! We need the supernatural gift/grace of faith in order to believe in the true religion (else all we have is, at most, opinion). And the grace of faith leads us, first of all, to believe in God, and to believe in His Son, Jesus Christ...and to believe in the judgments of the Church that Christ founded, which is the Catholic Church (and, among the teachings of the Catholic Church we find the teaching that the Holy Scriptures are the Inspired Word of God!)

____

In closing, let me just ask you a very practical and honest question, and one similar to the issue of whether or not the Koran is inspired. As you may know, the Canon of Scripture that is followed by Catholics is slightly different than that followed by Protestants. The Books that we Catholics consider to be Divinely Inspired that Protestants don't think are inspired are the Books of Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and parts of the Books of Daniel and Esther. Thus, there are many Christians who believe these Books to be inspired (eg., all Catholics, and, also, I think all Orthodox-- though, I am not 100% sure of that). So, now, do you believe these Books are inspired? And why or why not?

God's blessings upon you!

In Christ, the Son of God and Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan
Last edited by BrotherAlan on Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:48 am

robbyyoung wrote:Let me ask a question. When the New Heavens and Earth arrive on the scene, what happens to this 1st Century set-up of The Church hierarchy?

Would this hierarchy be void, unnecessary, fulfilled once "The Perfect" has come?
BrotherAlan wrote:Hello, RobbyYoung--
That's a good question...I'd have to think about (and research that) some more...but, my initial "stab" at an answer is that, "Yes", in the new age to come, i.e., the age of heaven, the current hierarchical structure of the Church will be fulfilled and no longer necessary...
Hi BrotherAlan,

IMHO, the events in 70AD ended the need of "The Churches" in their intended capacities to bring about 'the end of the age', as stated by Paul in Eph 4:10-13:

"He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things. And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ."

Furthermore, Paul taught that both the maturing of the Church and the cessation of gifts would occur AT the return of Christ, 1 Corinthians 13:8-12:

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Therefore, without laying again the foundation of Christ's Return in 70AD, from The Preterist perspective, IMHO Rev 22:17 & 21:3 have been realized since the consummation of events in 70AD.

--------------

The 1st Century Assemblies (Churches), did everything that was required of them in order to bring an end to the Old Covenant Age. They were equipped and functioning with GREAT POWER and AUTHORITY as a witness to the TIME, foretold to come. However, these 1st Century Assemblies, as we know them through scripture, had a judgement coming, along with, 'Old Covenant' Israel. These Assemblies, succumbed to MAN-MADE nonsense, of all sorts - probably, and were warned to repent before 'the end' came (please note the timing):

1 Peter 4:17 "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"

Rev 2 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:... Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent."

Now, without listing every occurrence to make my point, I would like to say, as a Preterist, scripture says these things already took place. Therefore, IMHO, what we have, since 70AD, is lamentably an empty shell of what was once ordained by God to exist and function, until 'The Perfect' arrived, to be replaced with God's tabernacle among men into the foreseeable future. God’s completed perfect/mature Word would now lead the true Spiritual church. Believers gathering amongst themselves to ascertain the truth of God's Word is totally different than following a belief system that doesn't exist any longer. It reminds me of The High Priest going behind 'The Veil' to an empty Holy of Holies!

So, IMHO, here is what happened in 70AD regarding The Church: The 1st Century physical church assembly ended, God's completed perfect/mature Word replaced the 1st Century Church for building up and instructing - as God now tabernacles among men, and of course spiritual gifts and miracles ended.

God Bless.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:14 pm

Dear robbyyoung,
Blessings to you and your family this new year!

Without going into all of the details (at least not right now) of the ideas you have proposed here, I will, sticking right now on the issue of the Canon of Scripture (which issue is also being discussed with dizerner right now), address the fact that at least some of the Scriptures you have quoted (eg., Revelation) were given after 70 AD (the proposed date in which the need for a Church hierarchy ended), and all of them were not officially recognized as canonical by the Christian community (i.e., the Church) until much after 70 AD (and, as you probably know, the canonicity of Revelation was something very much debated for a long time within the Church). However, based on the decisions of the hierarchy of this Christian community (i.e., Church), you are regarding these Scriptures as being canonical. Thus, it seems to me that your position is faced with the dilemma of relying upon the supposed teaching of these Scriptures stating there is no need for a hierarchy, and, at the same time, relying upon that same hierarchy to tell you that these Scriptures are canonical/inspired. How do you respond to this seeming dilemma? Again, this does not entirely directly address the apparent issues that you raise, but it is something, for now, to at least think about...

God bless!

In Christ,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:28 pm

BrotherAlan wrote:Dear robbyyoung,
Blessings to you and your family this new year!

Without going into all of the details (at least not right now) of the ideas you have proposed here, I will, sticking right now on the issue of the Canon of Scripture (which issue is also being discussed with dizerner right now), address the fact that at least some of the Scriptures you have quoted (eg., Revelation) were given after 70 AD (the proposed date in which the need for a Church hierarchy ended), and all of them were not officially recognized as canonical by the Christian community (i.e., the Church) until much after 70 AD (and, as you probably know, the canonicity of Revelation was something very much debated for a long time within the Church). However, based on the decisions of the hierarchy of this Christian community (i.e., Church), you are regarding these Scriptures as being canonical. Thus, it seems to me that your position is faced with the dilemma of relying upon the supposed teaching of these Scriptures stating there is no need for a hierarchy, and, at the same time, relying upon that same hierarchy to tell you that these Scriptures are canonical/inspired. How do you respond to this seeming dilemma? Again, this does not entirely directly address the apparent issues that you raise, but it is something, for now, to at least think about...

God bless!

In Christ,
BrotherAlan
Hi BrotherAlan,

I throughly understand what some say regarding 'The Revelation', and its late date, and reject their conclusions altogether. One of the best arguments for The Revelation written in and around the early 60's (AD) is Kenneth Gentry's scholars work called "Before Jerusalem Fell", published in 1989. Therefore, I'm settled in the early date for reason of the evidence presented. Believe me my dear Brother, I'm not interested in debating the early date of The Revelation, I'm simply putting forth my understanding concerning "The Church". Most of The Believers on this forum seek to simply answer for their own understanding, without a proselyte agenda, in order to either confirm or adjust their understanding (through interactions with others), to come closer to the truth of a matter. All we can do is present our understanding and compare it to another's, to let the chips fall where they may.

As for inspiration of scripture and canonical books and letters. God is the one who's responsible for it's revelation, and since, IHMO, we have arrived this side of The New Covenant, Believers need to exhaust all the material written during The Apostolic Era. For anybody to believe there weren't more inspired writings of the time, strains credibility. There were many lost writings that we know were inspired, which we don't have today. Maybe one day we will unearth another letter or book to add to the eternal story of the God we worship.

God Bless.

dizerner

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by dizerner » Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:30 pm

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Mon Feb 20, 2023 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Fri Jan 02, 2015 9:40 am

Dear Homer,
I hope and pray you are well.

I will try to take one issue at a time from your last reply, first dealing with the issue of Peter being the “rock” on which the Church is built. In your reply, you noted that Christ is the Rock on which the Church is built, implying that Peter cannot be the rock. But, this is a false contradiction; Christ being the Rock does not exclude Peter also being the rock. For, Christ being the Rock on which the Church is built means, among other things, that Christ is the Founder, Head, and Redeemer of the Church; He is the source of all the truth and grace which the Church possesses. On the other hand, Peter being the rock means that he has a participation in the authority which Christ possesses, because Christ gave him a share in this authority, with the words, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:18-19) For this reason, Christ is the Head (the invisible Head) of the Catholic Church, while the Pope is the “vicar/representative of Christ on earth” and the visible head of the Catholic Church. So, there is no contradiction between Christ being the Rock and Peter being the rock. To the contrary, the fact that Peter is the rock can only be so because it is rooted in the fact that Christ is the Rock, for whatever authority and power that Peter has belongs to him only because it is given to Him by Christ, Who is able to give it to Peter only because He, Christ, is God, from Whom all authority comes and flows (cf., Rom. 13:1), to Whom all power in heaven and on earth has been given (Mt. 28:18), and He, Christ, is the ultimate Head and Rock of the Church…and so to Him belongs, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, all power and glory, now and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

In Christ, the Founder, Bridegroom, Head, and Rock of the Catholic Church,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:12 am

Dear dizerner,
Okay, going to get back at this thread for a little bit here.

First, I fully agree with you that faith has to be something “personal” for us- that is, it is something that each one of us, as an individual, has to embrace (or, to put it in traditional theological terms, it is a virtue of the mind that each person must have in order to be saved). That said, faith is also something “communal”—as the now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI stated, in his opening of the recent “Year of Faith” which the Catholic Church commemorated recently, the Christian faith that each Christian embraces is pure and authentic insofar as it is the faith of the Christian Church…it is the CHURCH’S faith that we embrace, the faith of the Christian community, and not something that we, as individuals, determine or make up, even if we, as individuals, must, with our own free will, embrace that faith. And, in so doing, we are embracing CHRIST—the Christ who is presented to us by the Church, by the Christian community (for none of us find Christ without this community but, rather, it is only through the Christian community that Christ is introduced to us). But, again, though it is the Christian community, the Church, that presents Christ to us, it is each one of us, individually, who either willfully chooses to embrace Christ, or willfully chooses to reject Him (and, so, again, our Faith, our Faith in Christ, is, in one respect, personal and individual, and, in another respect, communal). Would you agree with that?

Lastly, with regard to the particular issue of the canon of Scripture, what principles do you think we can use to determine if a writing is inspired by God or not? (And note that I am using “inspiration” in the strict sense here, i.e., in the sense in which it means “written by God Himself”, even if also written through the means of an inspired human author) For example, if I believe that, say, the Book of Sirach is Divinely Inspired and, thus, Scriptural (as I, in fact, do believe), and you do not, what objective principles would you present to argue that it is not inspired?

In Christ,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”