A. believer said:It's too bad Ms. Franklin had such a poor understanding of the issues surrounding the Reformation and the principles of the Reformers. It's too bad she chose to base her judgment of the legitimacy of the Reformation on wrong assumptions. And it's too bad she failed to see that the "divisions" among Protestants are not unlike the "divisions" among Roman Catholics and hence, in order to be consistent, she'd have to rule out Roman Catholicism as a legitimate church as well.
If Ms. Franklin had understood that one cannot define Protestant as "any professing Christian who's not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox," but that evangelical Protestantism is a movement that's defined by certain distinctives, she would have known that many of the so-called divisions she encountered are not the result of disagreements among true evangelical Protestants--heirs of the tradition of the Reformation. For example, anyone who rejects the ultimate authority of the revelation of Scripture (whether expressly or by imposing acontextual interpretations and refusing the correction of Scripture, etc.) is not a legitimate evangelical Protestant. If she'd understood that, she could have eliminated a fair number of her examples of "divisions among Protestants" right from the get-go.
Yet Luther and Calvin disagreed on a multitude of things, and cursed each other as devils for it. So who was really led by the Holy Spirit?
Now what about the "divisions among Roman Catholics"? Are they substantially different from the "divisions among evangelical Protestants?"
Predestination, which view is correct? That of: Augustine, Scotus, Molina, Aquinas?
Is the Charismatic Catholic movement legitimate or not?
Can Natural Family Planning be used by all couples or only in cases of "extreme hardship?" If the latter, then what constitutes extreme hardship?
In the above cases, there is no definite answer for many, but these are not "divisions" of doctrine, merely nuances that are discussed. One can be Catholic and not agree. It's not as if a nature of God or salvation is at hand.
Did the Roman Catholic Church always teach transubstantiation (as Trent claims) or did the doctrine develop (in accordance with Newman's theory of development)?
Read the Church Fathers. From the Didiache (AD 70) Clement of Rome (AD 96), Ignatius of Antioch (AD 106) and onward EVERYONE BELIEVED IN THE REAL PRESENCE FROM THE 1ST CENTURY UNTIL TODAY. Transubstantiation is merely a terminology. It means "to change substance" which is what occurs at the Eucharist. For the dogma of the Real Presence is what occurs, but as to “how” it occurs is another issue… Transubstantiation is merely the explanation as to how it occurs but you can’t explain scientifically something that is a miracle.
The Doctrine was always held in the Church, and in 1215 the Lateran Council gave not a new doctrine, but merely the exact word which correctly describes the original and revealed Doctrine of Christ. Not in 1215, but in the year 500 Faustus, Bishop of Rietz, wrote, "Before consecration, the substance of bread and wine is present; after consecration, the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ.
By the way, nuance, but it's the CATHOLIC Church; Roman Catholic specifies merely the Latin Rite.
Did macro-evolution occur, or is the Genesis account a literal account?
Which of the Marian apparitions are genuine?
Are those who reject the Novus Ordo mass as legitimate, schismatics?
Are the pronouncements of Vatican II binding doctrine?
How many times has a pope spoken ex cathedra and which times were they?
Did Mary die before she was assumed, or was she still alive?
(And if we're going to consider issues that only those who openly reject the ultimate rule of faith of their own stated community would espouse the way Ms. Franklin did, we can add)
Should homosexuals be ordained as priests?
Can women be ordained as priests? (NO )
Is "pro-choice" a viable opinion for a Catholic? (NO)
The list goes on and on. . .
Again, none of these are dogmatic, and do not affect the Christocentric theology of the Church as do the issues I raised above. But on a separate thread I can better treat all these issues and give you the answers you seek.
No, but its intended meaning can be discerned through normal and natural means of interpretation. Self-interpreting simply refers to the analogy of faith--interpreting the parts of Scripture in the context of the entirety of Scripture--a hermeneutical principle not at all novel to the Reformers.
Really? So why didn't the reformers all come to the same conclusions:
Martin Luther: Consubstantiation and regenerative Baptism
Calvin: Symbolic Eucharist but with a spiritual, mystical grace through them. Infant Baptism necessary. Regenerative Baptism.
Zwigli: Symbolic baptism and eucharist
The list goes on and on... Baptists do not hold to the Calvinist view of things, the Arminian vs. Calvinist debate will continue to cause new churches to spring up on a daily basis.
In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Ch. 9)
All interpretations of Scripture are not equally plausible until and unless we receive an officially authoritative pronouncement on their meaning.
Neither of the above. Christ said (before his crucifixion) that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth. He didn't lie. We have the infallible record of that truth in Holy Scripture, and all other authorities instituted by God are subordinate to the ultimate authority of His infallible word.
Where is that in the Bible?
Nowhere is it taught that Catholics cannot read, study, and understand the Bible on their own. You will be hard-pressed to find proof of that teaching anywhere for it does not exist. But our interpretations should not be of ourselves but from the Holy Spirit, agreeing with that which has been handed down faithfully from generation to generation.
Bearing in mind, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Catholics revere and study the Bible diligently to deepen their faith in God, but they know that because we are imperfect humans, we are prone to error. Bear in mind we are the BODY of Christ, each of us with "different gifts, according to the grace given us" (Romans 12:3-8; cf Ephesians 4; 1 Cor. 12). Not all are called to prophecy, not all called to be teachers, and we cannot say we do not need them. Since some are teachers, some are better suited to aiding and supporting the brethren in their task. Some have a great enlightenment that others don't when reading the scripture. That is a fact even you cannot deny. The very office of a priest, deacon, or bishop are for men who fulfill these roles.
Ultimately this is why there is the Magisterium, based on Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem, to render decisions IN THE UNITY OF THE BODY, working together.
We Catholics are not "lone ranger" Christians, we celebrate our diversity within our unity. The depth of Scripture allows various levels of interpretation but must not, cannot contradict one another. For if one man does do this, it must be discussed.
Bearing this in mind, we are called to live in the model of the early Church, being of one heart and mind (cf Acts 4:32; John 14-18), not come up with our own "private interpretations" that are not from God.
Sacred Tradition (Apostolic Tradition) is vitally linked with Sacred Scripture. They spring from the one source - God. For do you believe, Mark, that if Paul had merely SPOKEN all the words of all his epistles and not written them, they wouldn't still (being the SAME words and SAME message) be inspired. By the power of the Holy Spirit, and His divine inspiration, He gives authority to men to preach and teach infallibly (Matthew 16:18, 18:18, 28:9; 1 Cor. 11:2; Phil. 4:9; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 3:10; 2 Thess. 2:14-15; 1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Tim. 2:2, 3:14; 2 Peter 3:15-16 -- the word "ignorant" or unschooled shows that people need to be taught and guided along the way with Scripture; 2 John 1:12)
For example, the popular NIV shows its anti-Catholic bias by mistranslating the Greek word "paradosis", ("tradition") in some passages (1 Cor 11:2; and 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6) where this inspired word is used in a positive sense. In its place the word "teaching" is substituted. However, when the Greek text uses the word "paradosis" in a negative sense it is correctly translated as "tradition." This misleads the reader to conclude that all "tradition," "paradosis", is condemned in the New Testament. This is an example of the evil of private interpretation, which is given precedent over the words chosen by the Holy Spirit. In addition, the reader of this translation is denied the opportunity to compare this interpretation of the text with what the text actually says. This is why it is necessary to test every spirit and learn the truth.
Now I have told you why I am Catholic. I have studied the writings of the Church Fathers, men so faithful (that so many were martyred) for the faith and the insistence on the unity of the Church, and the faithful transmission of the faith of the Apostles, handed to them from Jesus. If you read and study them you will find their Gospel and theology is not that of Calvinists, but that of the Catholics. Their understanding of Scripture and its depths and power, are without equal.
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
"To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established."
- Irenaeus, "Against the Heresies" (Book 3, Chapter 4)
(Polycarp, John's disciple, taught him well!)
TIM
Upvote
0
