Scott Hahn's "The Lamb's Supper"

[isshinwhat]

Augustine, Athanasius and Jerome all of whom sided with the Protestant wiew.

When the early Church Fathers spoke, they created no dichotomy between the symbolic nature of the Eucharist and the Reality of the Presence of Christ in it. Catholic theology has always spoken of the Eucharist as both symbolic and a factual reality. When reading any Catholic Theology, this must be remembered.

From Augustine

"What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

"Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church."

"Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof."

"Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven."

St. Jerome

"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the Apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ, and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians..." (Letter of Jerome to Heliodorus)

"After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood." (Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26)

From St. Athanasius

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ....Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

Their need not be a false dichotomy created between symbolic and the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

In Christ,

Neal

 

[Evan]

Vow,

You requested, "REVOKED "ex cathedra"? Yes, a reference please."

Here is just a short list.

Rome admits that, over the years, many errors have occurred. For instance, in the 1960s, Paul VI "de-canonized" over three hundred saints, declaring them to be fraudulent and not to be prayed to. One such example was Saint Christopher, who was supposed to have carried the Christ child. Since Christopher is a Greek name, the question was raised: What was a Greek doing in a Jewish city in the first place? Because of this realization, Christopher was, as were many others, stripped of his holy title. Could it be concluded that for centuries, the Roman church was guilty of promoting idolatry in the form of prayer to false saints?

During the years of the Inquisition, many were tortured and put to death for the "blasphemous sin" of eating meat on Friday. One of the official pronouncements of Vatican II (1962-1965), however, was that it was no longer considered a sin against God to eat meat on Friay, although voluntary abstinence was suggested as a personal sacrifice. In this case, the papacy's error is inexcusable, for it was one that cost many innocent men their lives. Pope John Paul II went so far as to declare the Inquisition the "greatest error in Church history."

Historical instances of obvious papal fallibility, such as those above, are available in abundance. Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later condemned it. Honorius (625-638) taught the heresy of Monothelism, which denied that Christ simultaneously possessed two separate natures -- human and divine. He was later condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680. Marcellinus (296-304) entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the pagan goddess. Liberius (352-366) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, the "great defender of the Deity of Christ," and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from exile and reinstated in his seat.

In 1431, Eugene IV (1431-1447) declared Joan of Arc guilty of practicing witchcraft and condemned her to be burned at the stake. In 1919, however, Benedict XV (1914-1922) canonized her as a saint. In 1633, the astronomer Galileo was brought to trial by the Jesuits for claiming that the earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. An earlier papal decree entitled De Revolutionibus had denounced the heliocentric view as heretical and "utterly contrary to the Holy Scriptures." Galileo's claims were consequently condemned as heretical and dangerous, and he was tortured and imprisoned. The pope only just recently recanted Galileo’s condemnation.

Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800=1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits; Paul III (1534-1549) permitted it and Pius VII re-established it. The list of such errors is much more, but the foregoing examples sufficiently prove the point.

Addressing the 85th General Congregation of the Vatican Council in 1870, in which Pius IV declared the papacy to be infallible, Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer of Germany, together with twenty-one archbishops and sixty-four bishops, announced, "Venerable brethren... history raises its voice to assure us that some popes have erred." When the above evidence is taken into consider, Strossmayer's words seem to have been somewhat of an understatement. He continued by saying, "Oh, venerable brethren, to maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than Judas. Let us turn to the teachings of the Apostles, since without them we have only error, darkness, and false tradition." As would be expected, Pius IV ordered Strossmayer to withdraw his "heretical" statements under the threat of excommunication of both and his supporters. Unfortunately, Strossmayer complied.

A Catholic Bishop recently wrote, “How could the Catholic Church faithfully, consistently and infallibly teach the same faith for 1900 years, and then suddenly propose, during the Second Vatican Council, false doctrines previously condemned by the past Popes and Councils (viz., ecumenism and religious liberty)? How could the Catholic Church continuously renew the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary in the Holy Mass and then abruptly substitute it with a Lutheran “memorial of the Last Supper”? How could the Catholic Church so firmly legislate in her laws against interfaith and intercommunion, as these would foster religious indifferentism, and then suddenly abrogate these laws and permits these undertakings?”

“Yet, it is primarily this issue of infallibility that divides those who call themselves traditional Catholics. Some traditional Catholics reject the errors of false ecumenism and religious liberty of the Second Vatican Council, the new Protestant memorial of the Last Supper — the Novus Ordo Missae — and the heresies of the New Code of Canon Law (1983) and yet insists that the very authors of these errors are still Christ’s representative here on earth. In reality, they say that the Living Magisterium of the Church has erred and has led the majority of Catholics into error, and continues to err. Such a conclusion is nothing more than to deny the infallibility of the Church.”

Hahn does very thorough research, I think he will address these issues don't you?

 

[VOW]

To Evan:

The list you have provided is not necessarily "ex Cathedra" statements. To the best of my knowledge, "ex Cathedra" has only been used a very few times. I don't think it's used to declare saints.

Please see the thread about explaining Catholic teachings. There's one listed called "the Five D's" and it differentiates what is to be considered infallible, and what is not.

The Inquisition is NOT a part of the Deposit of Faith. It wasn't even something sanctioned by Rome, but a matter of power and religion mixing where it had no business mixing. Wrong? Certainly! But it wasn't anything to do with the Deposit of Faith.

I'm going to leave this to Wolseley. He's our historian. But you must make sure that we're all talking apples here, and not apples, oranges, and horseshoes.

I don't know WHO this "Catholic Bishop" is that you are referring to, but be aware that some people do indeed speak their own opinions and are NOT giving an official Church position. There were a LOT of people unhappy with Vatican Two, and expressed resentment towards the Church and anything else they had a gripe with. Just because they had "Bishop" or "Cardinal" or whatever in front of their names does not make them an official Church spokesperson.

There is absolutely NO ARGUMENT that some Popes were screwups. Oh, they committed horrible crimes. But that doesn't mean they were speaking "ex Cathedra." For the most part, the screwup Popes were simply placeholders in the Apostolic Succession. People think that whatever the Pope speaks, he's voicing infallibility and Church doctrine. That's NOT the case. Infallibility is only applicable under very strict guidelines. And if the Pope were to supply you lottery numbers or racehorse names, save your money. He's also not going to be 100% accurate in weather forecasting, either.

I'll leave a PM for Wolseley to try to unravel your list as to what is "ex Cathedra" and what is not.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Evan]

Vow,

The point is not just that the popes were bad, but that they also made decree's of heresy, excommunication, and condemnation, which they either later recanted or subesequent popes recanted. Once you leave the Word of God for the word of man this is what happens...and worse!

I like what Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer of Germany said addressing the 85th General Congregation of the Vatican Council in 1870, in which Pius IV declared the papacy to be infallible. He said, "Venerable brethren... history raises its voice to assure us that some popes have erred. Oh, venerable brethren, to maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than Judas. Let us turn to the teachings of the Apostles, since without them we have only error, darkness, and false tradition."

 

[VOW]

To Evan:

I'm glad you found something you like. I haven't done enough personal research on this Bishop to know if he was expressing the views of Rome, or merely giving his own take on the matter.

Your grocery list of complaints cannot be verified, either, without more background. You mixed up a garden salad of failings of some of the leadership of the Catholic Church, and proclaimed them all as "ex Cathedra." I have tried to explain to you the difference between the exploitation of Indulgences, that the naming of Saints does not constitute part of the Deposit of Faith, and that screwup Popes, while blackening the eye of the Church, cannot destroy the Church itself.

You have found a reasoning which suits you. I have attempted to correct it, to coincide with Church teaching, but your reasoning fits you better than mine does.

I wish you success in your search for this elusive "truth." I have found MY truth in the Catholic Church.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Wolseley]

I'm going to leave this to Wolseley. He's our historian. But you must make sure that we're all talking apples here, and not apples, oranges, and horseshoes.

Gee, thanks, VOW.
I'll address the things on Evan's list, but I'm not going to get too in-depth. For one thing, this is a Catholic forum, and I don't have to convince anybody here of the veracity of Catholicism, and for another, most of this stuff has already been addressed and debunked a hundred times.

Rome admits that, over the years, many errors have occurred.

I'll start out by asking for a cite for this first statement. Who said this, and where, pertaining to what?

For instance, in the 1960s, Paul VI "de-canonized" over three hundred saints, declaring them to be fraudulent and not to be prayed to.

Incorrect. What happened was that over three hundred saints were removed from the Church's liturgical calendar. Some of them were admitted to have more legendary features about them than hard historical evidence, but they were never "de-canonized" and there was certainly no injunction that they were not to be prayed to.

(Delaney, John J., Dictionary of Saints. New York: Doubleday, 1980. pp. 11-13.)

One such example was Saint Christopher, who was supposed to have carried the Christ child. Since Christopher is a Greek name, the question was raised: What was a Greek doing in a Jewish city in the first place? Because of this realization, Christopher was, as were many others, stripped of his holy title. Could it be concluded that for centuries, the Roman church was guilty of promoting idolatry in the form of prayer to false saints?

Ah, yes, St. Christopher; I remember when the secular media had a field day with him, and, as usual, they got the story wrong, just like they always do every time they try to report on anything Catholic. St. Christopher was another one that was never "de-canonized". But the media tried to make people think he had. Your last sentence shows a slight slip and a revealing of your agenda, Evan---but no, the Catholic Church does not make idols out of saints, legendary features or not. Nice try, though.

During the years of the Inquisition, many were tortured and put to death for the "blasphemous sin" of eating meat on Friday.

Cite?

One of the official pronouncements of Vatican II (1962-1965), however, was that it was no longer considered a sin against God to eat meat on Friay, although voluntary abstinence was suggested as a personal sacrifice. In this case, the papacy's error is inexcusable, for it was one that cost many innocent men their lives. Pope John Paul II went so far as to declare the Inquisition the "greatest error in Church history."

The question is, which Inquisition? The Roman one? The Spanish one? The pre-14th century one? The post-Reformation one?
As for meat on Friday, it was and is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine, and nowhere near a dogma or part of the original deposit of the Faith, and as such, it was not, nor is it now, any type of infallible teaching. Since it is not an infallible teaching, Papal changes or retractions to it have nothing to do with Papal infallibility.

Historical instances of obvious papal fallibility, such as those above, are available in abundance.

As I just explained, neither one has anything to do with infallibility.

Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later condemned it.

Too lengthy to go into, but the main document is from Tertullian, Ad Praxeam, I, and he does not name the pontiff; some think it was Victor, others Eleutherius. In any event, there is no evidence that the pontiff (whoever he was), ever projected the heresy of Montanism in an infallible statement. Popes make statements all the time, but that doesn't mean that every word out of their mouths
is infallible.

(Kelly, J.N.D.; The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. New York: Oxford, 1986, pg. 12.

Kirsch, J.P.; "Victor I"; The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.15. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1912, pg. 408.)

Honorius (625-638) taught the heresy of Monothelism, which denied that Christ simultaneously possessed two separate natures -- human and divine. He was later condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680.

Again, it cannot be proven that this was ever formally made as an ifallible pronouncement. Honorius comes up every time infallibility is discussed, and all it amounts to is tha Honorius sent some hastily-produced letters to Bishop Sergius of Jerusalem expressing a personal opinion. It doesn't make it an infallible statement. Further, Honorius was never officially condemned with heresy, but merely with negligence in not being more careful. (Pope Agatho never confirmed the decrees of anathema of the 6th Council of Constantinople [not the 3rd, as you erroneously cite]), and Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees but officially cleared Honorius. Again, too long to go into, but check the references below.

(Carroll, Warren. The History of Christendom, Vol. 2.[/i] Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press, 1987, pg. 254.

Kelly, pp. 70-71.

Madrid, Patrick. Pope Fiction. San Diego, CA: Basilica Press, 1999, pp. 158-162.)

Marcellinus (296-304) entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the pagan goddess.

Yes he did. Under force from Diocletian's persecution. However, as with the "Paul rebuked Peter" debate, this is an example of personal conduct; it has nothing to do with a teaching issued for the entire universal Church on a matter of faith or morals, and ergo, has nothing to do with infallibility.

(Kelly, pp. 24-25.)

Liberius (352-366) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, the "great defender of the Deity of Christ," and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from exile and reinstated in his seat.

What you're neglecting to mention is that previous to this, Liberius had been been subjected to bribes, threats, and force from the agents of the pro-Arian Emperor, Constantius III, and after being exiled to Thrace, was constantly harassed by the local pro-Arian bishop in league with the Emperor. As a result of what we would today call brainwashing, he cracked and acquiesed. Fortunately, however, papal statements extracted by force or under other conditions of duress are not only not considered infallible, they're not even considered binding. It is also to be noted that before and after his imprisonment, Liberius was a champion of Nicene orthodoxy, and his acceptance of Arianism was made when he was not in his right mind, thereby negating it before it was even acted upon. There is also some historical evidence to indicate that Liberius never cracked at all, thus rendering the whole question moot.

(Kelly, pp. 30-31.

Madrid, pp. 141-147.)

In 1431, Eugene IV (1431-1447) declared Joan of Arc guilty of practicing witchcraft and condemned her to be burned at the stake. In 1919, however, Benedict XV (1914-1922) canonized her as a saint.

Joan's trial was conducted under the auspices of Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, not Pope Eugene IV. In any event, the trial was nullified by the Holy See 24 years later. Also, Joan was canonized in 1920, not 1919.

(Delaney, pp. 312-313.

Thurston, Herbert. "Joan of Arc"; The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, pp. 411-413.)

In 1633, the astronomer Galileo was brought to trial by the Jesuits for claiming that the earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. An earlier papal decree entitled De Revolutionibus had denounced the heliocentric view as heretical and "utterly contrary to the Holy Scriptures." Galileo's claims were consequently condemned as heretical and dangerous, and he was tortured and imprisoned. The pope only just recently recanted Galileo’s condemnation.

Galileo was put on trial for erroneous theology, not for his scientific theories. Further, he was never imprisoned, and he was never tortured. He was under a loose form of house arrest while in Rome, and had excellent meals, every convenience, and a persoanl servant to wait on him hand and foot. Further, the document De Revolutionibus was not a papal decree by any stretch of the imagination; it was a treatise written by Nicholas Copernicus and it was published a hundred years before Galileo's trial.

(Madrid, pp. 178-189.)

Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated.

Specific cites?

Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800=1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits; Paul III (1534-1549) permitted it and Pius VII re-established it.

And not a single one of these has a thing to do with papal infallibility. My general reaction to these charges is a shrug of the shoulders and an offhand, "So what?"

The list of such errors is much more, but the foregoing examples sufficiently prove the point.

Yes, they prove that the information behind them is completely erroneous, misinterpreted, misapplied, or fabricated.

Addressing the 85th General Congregation of the Vatican Council in 1870, in which Pius IV declared the papacy to be infallible, Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer of Germany, together with twenty-one archbishops and sixty-four bishops, announced, "Venerable brethren... history raises its voice to assure us that some popes have erred." When the above evidence is taken into consider, Strossmayer's words seem to have been somewhat of an understatement. He continued by saying, "Oh, venerable brethren, to maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than Judas. Let us turn to the teachings of the Apostles, since without them we have only error, darkness, and false tradition." As would be expected, Pius IV ordered Strossmayer to withdraw his "heretical" statements under the threat of excommunication of both and his supporters. Unfortunately, Strossmayer complied.

All of which is total and complete hogwash. Strossmayer never made any such declaration; the source of this nonsense is a forged anti-catholic document which appeared in the Italian press after the Council, and which was repudiated by Strossmayer, who declared he'd never had anything to do with it.

(Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1988, pp. 34-35.

Madrid, pp. 259-271.)

A Catholic Bishop recently wrote, “How could the Catholic Church faithfully, consistently and infallibly teach the same faith for 1900 years, and then suddenly propose, during the Second Vatican Council, false doctrines previously condemned by the past Popes and Councils (viz., ecumenism and religious liberty)? How could the Catholic Church continuously renew the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary in the Holy Mass and then abruptly substitute it with a Lutheran “memorial of the Last Supper”? How could the Catholic Church so firmly legislate in her laws against interfaith and intercommunion, as these would foster religious indifferentism, and then suddenly abrogate these laws and permits these undertakings?”
“Yet, it is primarily this issue of infallibility that divides those who call themselves traditional Catholics. Some traditional Catholics reject the errors of false ecumenism and religious liberty of the Second Vatican Council, the new Protestant memorial of the Last Supper — the Novus Ordo Missae — and the heresies of the New Code of Canon Law (1983) and yet insists that the very authors of these errors are still Christ’s representative here on earth. In reality, they say that the Living Magisterium of the Church has erred and has led the majority of Catholics into error, and continues to err. Such a conclusion is nothing more than to deny the infallibility of the Church.”

The Catholic bishop you speak of is the late Marcel LeFebvre, a schismatic who was excommunicated from the Church by his defiance to the Holy See and formed his own home-made "Catholic church". While he was entitled to his views, he hardly spoke, then or now, for the Catholic Church.

All in all, a nice little laundry list, Evan, but it lacks verification. I would especially be careful of using the artificial "Strossmayer" speech, since it's a well-known peice of garbage that anti-catholics like to throw out as an accusation, but it doesn't have any more veracity than stuff published by Jack Chick.

Blessings,
---Wols.

 

[Evan]

Wolseley,

Ok...lets see...you said,

Incorrect

media had a field day,they got the story wrong, just like they always do every time they try to report on anything Catholic

The question is, which Inquisition? The Roman one? The Spanish one? The pre-14th century one? The post-Reformation one?

Too lengthy to go into,

Again, it cannot be proven

Yes he did. Under force

acceptance of Arianism was made when he was not in his right mind,

"So what?"

this nonsense is a forged anti-catholic document which appeared in the Italian press

the bishop you speak of is the late Marcel LeFebvre, a schismatic who was excommunicated

You said this proves they were all just fallible men, and I agree completely...they were! Now there is one thing that is not fallible that has been around over 3,000 years.

The Word of God.

No mistakes, no excuses, no "so what's", just plain 'ole 100% pure unadulterated uncontradictable truth!

This what you seek, Vow seeks, Hahn seeks, and I seek.

The question is are we going to seek it from men who have proven fallibilty ad nausium and try to prop them up with "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" theology, or are we going to go the source of all truth which never changes and has never ever no never had an error?

This thread is on Scott Hahn's search for the truth. My point is that he had it until he starting consulting men. And now look and see and please tell me again, what is man's track record?

 

[Wolseley]

You said this proves they were all just fallible men, and I agree completely...they were!

No, actually what I said was that the pontiffs above did not make infallible statements, since none of the conditions for making an infallible statement were in place concerning the particular situations we were discussing.

Now there is one thing that is not fallible that has been around over 3,000 years.

The Word of God.

No mistakes, no excuses, no "so what's", just plain 'ole 100% pure unadulterated uncontradictable truth!

The question is are we going to seek it from men who have proven fallibilty ad nausium and try to prop them up with "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" theology, or are we going to go the source of all truth which never changes and has never ever no never had an error?

Who compiled your infallible Bible, Evan?

Did it drop out of the sky, whole and complete, and fall into Moses' arms on Mt. Sinai?

Did God set up a home publishing business and churn out copies by Himself, to ensure they were free of error?

Or, did God use fallible, weak, sinful, erroneous men to write, preserve, compile, and discern the truth of, the various writings which eventually found their way into the collective Bible?

If the answer is the last one, then you agree that your Bible was compiled by fallible men; and if fallible men can compile an infallible Bible, why is it so difficult to believe that fallible men can lead an infallible Church?

The Holy Spirit is not limited in what he can do, the last time I checked.

(End note: although this thread more properly belongs in Interfaith Dsicussion, I'll allow it to remain here for the time being, provided it doesn't get too debate-y. If it does, I'll transfer it and we can continue on.)

 

[VOW]

I love you, Wolseley!

I'd offer to marry you and have your babies, but alas! I'm already married, and my body has informed me I'm out of the baby-making business.

You have my utmost gratitude.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[LilyLamb]

Amen!!!

Please don't let anything happen to this thread cause I need to get more ink so I can print this one and file it.

 

[Fr. Rob]

A view of the Scriptures:

Evan,

The Bible, you know it (a sixty-six book compilation) is a very late development. The Bible was complied, as Wol. has said, by the Church. I like to think of it this way:

The "founding fathers" ruminated for a while about a document that would be true, accurate, and faithful to the message they were trying to get out. It would be widely read, greatly loved, and speak to the last generation to use it as much as it spoke to the first. While each subsequent generation might try to turn it into something else, take something away or add something to, it simply wouldn't stick.

In the USA, we call that the Bill of Rights. The original constitution is fixed. Repealing any of those first ten or so articles would be tantamount to removing any of the Books of Moses from the Bible.

To carry the analogy farther, however, the Church then agreed to use that as the ultimate standard. Anything added to it (amendments) can be fully overturned. In like manner, any of the non-biblical docrines that are raised up in the Church can be done away with, when they are proven to be un-biblical. But those that are not proven to contradict the faith can stand.

I do not believe in an infallaible Pope (if I did, I would be a Roman Catholic, not an Anglican Catholic), but I do believe that the Church chose the scriptures to be her constitution and ultimate rule of faith. It is to be understood in the light of itself, and of the "founding fathers" who crafted it, together with pledges and statements that summarise it's contents (i.e., the Pledge or Oath of Office for Americans, the Creed of Pledge of Baptism for a Catholic).

I do believe the Church is bound by scriptures.

I also believe that one must be careful about the scripture they use. If you are using the most recent printings of the KJV, for instance, you don't have the original KJV. (Not that the KJV is infalliable, mind you, only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts can claim that!) The KVJ as originally transcribed by the Anglican Church follows the Anglican practice of including the Apocrypha in the "inter-testamental" section of the Bible (between Malachi and Matthew). It is read in Anglican worship from time to time (though not as frequently as in Roman worship). It's nearly impossible to buy a KJV today with the Apocrypha, because the KJV folk don't want it there. By ignoring it, you ignore at the very least a good history and morality lesson. Perhaps much more!

Sorry for the lengthy diatribe. Back to work!

Father Rob
Anglican Catholic

 

[Evan]

This has been a great post, I am glad I'm not the only one benefiting! It is so interesting to discuss these issues and for everyone to see different viewpoints. I think that's how we all grow...at least that's how I seem to grow.

Thanks for jumping in on this Wolseley!

I believe the bible is inspired in the same way a Prophet was inspired. The fallible man is speaking, but every word is the actual Words of God, so he could say, "thus saith the Lord" and never be wrong.

If a Prophet was ever wrong....even one itty bitty tiny little time, God said; "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.","... even that prophet shall die."
DEU 18:20, 22

Now it was not a matter of fallible or infallible. It was a matter of God speaking or not speaking.

There was not simply a "revocation" or "recanting" of the prophesy. There was death!

Was God unduly harsh here?

No...He is just very jealous of whom speaks in His name.

God's Prophets spoke God's Words not their words.

LUK 1:70 As He spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

Who spoke?......God!

The Apostles also very boldly asserted that they spoke God's Word and not their words.

GAL 1:11 ¶ For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
GAL 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
2CO 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Again, not fallible or infallible. It was either God speaking or it was not.

Now we have seen numerous historical facts where the Church fathers have disagreed, contradicted and excommunicated each other and others to only later recant.

You say that just shows their fallibility. And I say it shows they were not speaking for God.

You say, of course they were not speaking for God!

Ohhh really. So when all these popes spoke all these errors you are saying they were just private opinions?
Are you saying the Catholic Church was just in error to have so strongly and strictly enforced these obviously private opinions for as long as it did?

Or do you think perhaps that it is just quite possible that the popes believed they were speaking for God and all who heard believed they were speaking for God?

And if that is the case, should they be classified as false prophets, whether intentional, unintentional, out of their minds or whatever.

And Hahn and we are going to rely on this standard for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" ?

I think I will stay with Scripture as God spoke thru Moses, the Prophets,the Apostles and Jesus Christ.

Everything else is just fallible words from fallible man.

But I think we have steered way off of Hahn. As enjoyable and beneficial as this has been, I think it is the rules of this post to not veer off into these areas and I don't want to break these rules. For this I apologize. But for what I have learned, I thank you Vow and Wolseley very much!!!

 

[Wolseley]

Well, I doubt that we accomplished anything outside of enlightening the lurkers, but you're quite welcome.

Have a nice day, and enjoy your interpretations.