My Objections To The Catholic Faith, #1

[Guest ICTHUS- guest]

G'day phatmass scholars.

The three threads I'm about to post are apologetical issues that I have trouble with, and that are preventing me from being confirmed, at present. Simply put, if the Church of Rome cannot answer herself and refute me on these issues, then she is [i]apostate[/i] from the Biblical gospel, and according to my conscience, and for the salvation of my immortal soul, I must leave her fold.

The first of such questions is this:

1. We must begin by dealing with some of the presuppositions that Protestantism holds. One of these presuppositions is sola scriptura, the belief that the Bible, the written Word of God, is the sole infallible rule of Faith on all matters of doctrine and morality. This presupposition does not exclude other rules of Faith, such as the authority of the Church Fathers, or of Commentaries, but it holds that such rules must submit to the one, infallible rule of Faith – the Scriptures.

The basis for this presupposition is the following:

1. Acts 17:11 – Bereans noble because they searched the Scriptures
2. 2 Tim 3:16-17 - emphasis on the word ‘sufficent’ (Gk. [font="symbol"]artioV[/font])

On what basis, therefore, does the Church set herself up as the final arbiter of all truth. Granted, the Scriptures say in 1 Tim 3:15 that the Church of the Living God is ‘the pillar and foundation of the Truth’ – but this requires that she be subordinate to Truth (and what is Truth, but God’s Word, for “Thy word is Truth” (John 17:17) , for what is a foundation but that upon which the Truth is built.

[BLAZEr]

Ichtus,

I'm sorry that you feel that the Church has to prove herself to you to NOT be apostate. Anytime you approach something from a skeptical perspective you are not approaching it honestly, nor seeking truth. Being skeptical means distrusting and imposing yourself as the method of understanding and truth. Isn't it possible that you may misunderstand or disbelieve something that is true because YOU don't understand it, or because YOU have an issue that prevents you from seeing it clearly? Truth does not correspond to you, but rather you must conform to Truth.

On this issue, I would simply ask, if we are to believe that the Scriputres alone are the sole authority for understanding Christ's revelation, then it woul NECESSARILY follow that somewhere in the Scriputres it would say this. You cannot say "Everything that is true about Christ comes from the scriptures alone" and then in the same breath say "except that the teaching of scriptures alone is not in the scriptures."

Where in the Scritpures does it say that "Scripture alone" is the sole authority?


I also think you dismiss too quickly the passage from 1 Tim 3:15. The scripture clearly says that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. This very scripture implies that Truth is built up from the Church. Without the foundation, the house crumbles. If the foundation is weak, or insfufficient, the house crumbles. If truth is built upon the foundation of the Chruch, then it can be assumed, because Truth is strong, that the foundation must be strong too, because it supports it.

The scriptures are a part of the teaching authority of the Church. The Scriptures and the Tradition are both equal parts of Christ's revelation. But it must always be remembered that the Scriptures come out of the tradition. The Bible did not fall out of the sky and God said "Here, learn this and you will know everything you need to know to get to Heaven." Rather, God sent his Son as a person to be encountered, as a person who was real, and met people and taught them personally and then instructed those people to go out and meet people and teach them, to go out and make disciples.

The scriptures emerged in order to reinforce the teaching authority of the Church (her bishops and priests) because the canon of scriptures would become the standard by which to measure whether the teachers were all teaching the same thing. The Bible became the first magisterial document. The first "catechism" if you will, which was written by priests and bishops, and the Pope (Paul, Luke, John, Peter) and was confirmed as authoritative by a Church Council.

The Scriptures cannot be looked at like some Book that God sent for us to read and understand. They can only be understood from the perspective of the Church, which is to see that they are the memory (inspired by God) of the Church's encounter of Christ. Of who Christ was, what he taught, how he called us to be.

I hope this helps a little. I wil pray for you as you prepare for your confirmation.

[p0lar_bear]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking for a refutation of Sola Scriptura or a defense of the authority of the Church?

The former is actually rather easy.

No where in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the only authority. In fact, it claims just the opposite.

2 Thes 2:15 "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

2 Tim. 2:2 "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."

More than once, John states that everything that Christ did and said was not written down (cf. John 20:30; 21:25).

Furthermore, the story of the eunuch in Acts 8 tells us that one cannot interpret the Scriptures without guidance.

But you don't need me to tell you this. phatcatholic has a lot more than this in his apologetics reference section.


The question, then, becomes the teaching authority of the Church.

First, it must be understood that the Church is subordinate to the truth, both in Scripture and Tradition. Contrary to the claims of some, nothing that the church teaches is contrary to Scripture. It may go beyond it, but it does not contradict it.

Now, Jesus did not write a book, He established a Church, the Catholic Church. In doing so He also established a magisterium, i.e. a teaching office.

Jesus did not speak as the rabbis of His day, He spoke with authority. He did not give opinions, but truth. Of course, you'll agree with this.

However, Jesus' teaching authority did not leave the Church with His Ascension. Jesus left his Apostles, whom He chose, to carry on this ministry and authority. Jesus taught all the people, but "To [the Apostles] it [was] given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the people] it has not been given." He taught the Apostles beyond what He taught the populous.

Not only did Jesus give the Apostles "the secrets," He also gave them His authority (cf. Mt 28:18-20, lk 10:16).



If the gates of hell were not to prevail against the Church (cf. Mt. 16:18), there had to be a way for the authority of the Church to be passed on. The solution to this was already presented in the Scriptures. In Acts 1 the Eleven cast lots to replace Judas. Matthias became one of the Twelve.

As the Church grew the Twelve were not able to be present everywhere. The emergence of the episcopate came from the Apostles laying hands on worthy men, giving them authority of the Church in that area. Like Timothy, they were expected to "guard what had been entrusted" to them (1 Tim 6:20).

This magisterium does not look exactly like it did 2000 years ago, but it has the same authority and purpose, to guard the Deposit of Faith and spread the Gospel. The magisterium is the safe-guard of orthodoxy, preventing the faithful from following false teaching. The magisterium also has the responsibility of delving the depths of the Deposit, going beyond the surface to discover the fullness that was given to us in divine revelation.



I'm not sure if this has answered your question. If it doesn't, please clarify your question.

[ICTHUS]

What about the Acts 17:11 passage? What does it teach, if not that the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians [i]because they judged Pauls teachings on the basis of the Scriptures[/i]?

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Mar 31 2004, 11:30 AM'] What about the Acts 17:11 passage? What does it teach, if not that the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians [i]because they judged Pauls teachings on the basis of the Scriptures[/i]? [/quote]
But people were either Jewish or heathens. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul taught mainly from scripture (the OT mind you) because they were converting Gentiles and Jews. They had to first prove historically (using historic / inspired documents) that Jesus was the ONE. The Old Testament, in conjunction with what they had seen Jesus do, proves this. But beyond that, then, once the Bereans (and incidentally all the Converts) accepted that Jesus was the True ONE of God, the Messiah who was to come, then they listened to the Apostles. Remember that the Apostles only used the OT. So if they followed Sola Scriptura back then, we wouldn't have the NT. Before they were identified as one of the books of the Bible, Pauls letters were...well...letters. They were as good as his spoken word. He had to write since he was an evangalist traveling all over.


Besides for this... to answer your question...

Did the Bereans find anything that Paul taught contradictory to what they read in Scripture? NO!

So what does this prove? It proves, among other things I suppose, that Paul's teachings (i.e. much of the NT) was backed by the OT.

It does NOT however prove Sola Scriptura. For one, if you "test" Catholic Teaching agains the Bible, you won't find anything contradictory either (ask Bro. Adam )

It is okay to "test" what the Church is saying. That's fine. But remember too, the Bereans only used the OT. It is noteworthy to say that if you use the NT to "test" the Church, you are really re-inventing the wheele. The Church wrote the NT, so you are testing Church Teaching with Church Teaching.


And upon reading this passage:

11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.


We can see why they were of more nobel character. Because they received the message with GREAT EAGERNESS and examined the Scriptures every day... In other words, it wasn't simply because they "tested Paul", but rather because they were EAGER to know the Truth.

On the other hand, we can assume that theThessalonians were not eager and did not study the Scriptures every day. This doesn't make the the Bereans more or less Catholic than the Thessalonians. They BOTH were Catholic (as in they both accepted Catholic doctrine / dogma - universally). Though the Thessalonians, even by Catholic standards today, were "lukewarm". They simply weren't eager to know the Truth. Faithfull Catholics study Scripture.


This passage isn't a message of "sola scriptura", it is a call to avoid lukewarmness. Embrace Church teaching, study it, test it against Scripture, understand Scripture. Be HOT for Christ.

[ICTHUS]

What about the Marian dogmas? I have read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn, but I will admit that it's a bit of a stretch to arrive at them from Scripture - you have to trust all kinds of extrabiblical typology and such that is sketchy at best. Not to mention St. Jeromes equivocation of the word 'until' and the word 'to' in his "Dialogue with Helvidius", when they do not mean the same thing, in either Biblical language.

[p0lar_bear]

I second Jake on that.

The early believers were often told to test what they had been told. They tested what the Apostles taught them according to the Old Testament. They tested any new teachers according to what the Apostles taught. We should also test things. That, however does not prove sola scriptura.

The Bereans could not look at the Old Testament and find everything Paul taught. They would not find "blessed are the poor in spirit..." or "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." That they tested his teachings means that they saw in his teachings the fulfillment of the Old Testament, not the Old Testament itself.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Mar 31 2004, 03:03 PM'] What about the Marian dogmas? I have read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn, but I will admit that it's a bit of a stretch to arrive at them from Scripture - you have to trust all kinds of extrabiblical typology and such that is sketchy at best. Not to mention St. Jeromes equivocation of the word 'until' and the word 'to' in his "Dialogue with Helvidius", when they do not mean the same thing, in either Biblical language. [/quote]
The Church doesn't claim that the Marian dogmas are explicit in Scripture. The Church has never taught sola scriptura. If you accept the model of Divine Revelation taught by the Church the Marian dogmas are not a problem. But on the other hand there is a mountain of Biblical foundations for the Marian dogmas. Hahn's book is pretty good as a popular introduction, but it is hardly the whole story. I felt it was rather weak in certain areas, and its so short anyway, I doubt he intended it to be a full exposition on these matters. If you want to study Biblical mariology in more depth I could recommend many books.

For good, orthodox, one volume treatises these are my top picks:

"Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant", by Ignace de la Potterie

"All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed", by Fr. Stephano Manelli

For highly informative biblical treatises with a liberal slant (modernist, aka "modern critical" biased scholarship) I would recommend:

"The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament", by John McHugh

Also Rene Laurentin has some good scholarship. For example:

"A Short Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary"
"The Truth of Christmas" (engages modernist scholarship, for example Raymond Brown's "Birth of the Messiah").

For more comprehensive works my first picks would be:

Matthias Scheeben's two volume "Mariology"
Juniper Carol's three volume "Mariology"

For "modern critical" scholarship, largely form criticism Ray Brown style I would suggest Bertrand Buby's three volume "Mary of Gallilee" series. It's really got a lot of problems, but there is some good information nonetheless.

There is also some good protestant scholarship out there. For example the reformed calvinist scholar Max Thurian wrote a treatise on Our Lady in the Bible which is good. Its called "Mary, Mother of All Christians".

Fr. Most has some very informative writings on this subject. Here is an online book:
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=213"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/g...cfm?worknum=213[/url]

Here are his complete works:
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/start.cfm"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/start.cfm[/url]

I am also a fan of Dr. Mark Miravalle's books and also the "Mary at the Foot of the Cross" series, published my the Franciscans of the Immaculate. And back issues of "Marian Studies" are good, although the Dayton crew has some serious problems these days, they seem to publish more articles about feminine imagery in Buddhist literature than they do about Catholicism. The articles from the 1950's are the best in my opinion.

The depth and richness of the Marian presence in Sacred Scripture is pretty staggering actually. There is too much for posts, it is best to study it.

[p0lar_bear]

Also remember that what all the Marian dogmas say something about Jesus more so than Mary. Mary is called "Mother of God" to affirm that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (which is, of course, Scriptural). The Marian dogmas are the logical conclusion of our understanding of Christ.

[ICTHUS]

So the conclusion that Mary is sinless logically follows the fact that Jesus is sinless and the Son of God?

Somehow I don't follow your logic...

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Apr 1 2004, 12:50 PM'] So the conclusion that Mary is sinless logically follows the fact that Jesus is sinless and the Son of God?

Somehow I don't follow your logic... [/quote]
The Logic comes from the fact that it was Jesus Himself who chose His own Mother. If you chose your Mother, would you not make her sinless?

In light of the fact that such detail was placed in the creation of the Old Covenant Ark, it follows that equal if not greater detail would be placed in the creation of the New Covenant Ark.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]What about the Marian dogmas? I have read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn, but I will admit that it's a bit of a stretch to arrive at them from Scripture - you have to trust all kinds of extrabiblical typology and such that is sketchy at best.[/quote]

You keep saying "stretch" and "sketchy". What is a stretch about the exegesis? I'm very familiar with the book, so hopefully you can help me with what you see as problems with it.

[quote]Not to mention St. Jeromes equivocation of the word 'until' and the word 'to' in his "Dialogue with Helvidius", when they do not mean the same thing, in either Biblical language.[/quote]

I think the best argument for the "until" clause is Jesus' "I will be with you until the end of the age".

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Apr 1 2004, 01:50 PM'] So the conclusion that Mary is sinless logically follows the fact that Jesus is sinless and the Son of God?

Somehow I don't follow your logic... [/quote]
It isn't logical to me, but then Christ being the Saviour isn't logical either, that's where faith comes in, like in this case

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Apr 1 2004, 01:50 PM'] So the conclusion that Mary is sinless logically follows the fact that Jesus is sinless and the Son of God?

Somehow I don't follow your logic... [/quote]
How could God draw flesh from a sinful object?

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Apr 1 2004, 03:50 PM'] So the conclusion that Mary is sinless logically follows the fact that Jesus is sinless and the Son of God?

Somehow I don't follow your logic... [/quote]
Again, I'm more or less going to second Jake.

Mary was preserved from even Original Sin precisely because she was to hold something so holy, i.e. Jesus, within her. In discussing the Immaculate Conception, the Catechism quotes Lumen Gentium saying:

[quote]To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role" (LG 56)(no. 490).[/quote]

Just as the tablets of the Decalogue, the word of God, demanded a sacred vessel (the Ark of the Covenant), so to did Jesus, the Living Word.