While the title of this post may conjure up images of Angela Bower and Tony Macelli, I think it's an incredibly important subject on 52 Prayers as it is the major difference between the Catholic and Protestant church. I've asked Dave to explain the Catechism, and the authority of the Catholic church as opposed to the final authority being Scripture. This is what Dave had to say...
What is more important (or is there a hierarchy at all) the Bible or the Church? Why use the Catechism when you have the Bible? Is it to make it easier to comprehend since Scripture is clearly daunting?
The first letter of Paul was written about 20 years after Jesus’ death & Resurrection. The Gospels were written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 90. The first list of what books were in the Bible did not appear until 367. The Bible was not assembled into one list of books until the Council of Rome in A.D. 382. What did Christians do for the first 300 years without the bible or definitive cannon of scripture? (Yes, I realize the history of all this is way more complicated than this but as a practical matter this is the time period we are discussing).
First, the early Christians were taught the Gospel by the Apostles and their successors. The culture of the time had a tradition that included oral history. The stories of the Gospel and the teachings of the Apostles on the meaning of those stories were repeated orally over and over and taught to each successive generation. We know from Scripture that the teaching of the Apostles and their successors was protected from error by the Holy Spirit. On matters of Faith their teaching was (and remains) infallible.
Of course, the first Converts and early Christians were not taught by word alone. Each of the Apostles lived with a community of converts for a time before moving on to the next one. During the time the Apostle lived with a community he would teach them how to do things by showing them. They showed them things like how to Baptize and how to perform the Eucharist. Of course, the first Christians then repeated what they had been shown. The things they read, taught, and did became the Sacred Traditions of the community. When the Apostle moved on, he would appoint a leader of the new community. In time, the Apostle would often travel back to the community to check on them or would write to them. He would correct any error that had crept into their practices or teachings. Of course, the letters of Paul that subsequently were recognized as Scripture are his writing back to communities to answer questions and correct errors. Thus, the whole known world of Christianity was conformed to one doctrine, one faith.
Over time, the Gospel stories of the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ were copied, circulated and distributed. However, it is fair to say that it is unlikely that every community had a copy of every book and it is highly unlikely that every person in each Church had their own copy. What would happen if an early Church had a copy of Matthew but not of John? The growing written historical record in the Gospels was undoubtedly read aloud at services but the traditional oral teachings of what was known (but not yet written down) and of what the Gospel stories meant was continued. Obviously, over time, the written historical record grew in importance.
In A.D. 382, the Church met in Council. At the council, the Church recognized the cannon of scripture. How was this done? Some Gospels were traditionally used in every Church. Historically, these traditional Gospels could be tracked back to the Apostles or to an author with a direct link to an Apostle. Thus, based on their traditional use in services (Sacred Tradition) or their lineage back to the teaching of the Apostle (Apostolic Succession), the Church accepted a book (Teaching Authority) as part of the inspired cannon of scripture and it became part of the Bible. Gospels, that had not been traditionally used or that could not be traced back directly to an Apostle were rejected. Gospels and other letters that did not teach the theology that had been passed down as teaching by Apostolic Succession were also rejected.
This combination of Infallible Teaching, Sacred Tradition and Inspired Scripture is what the Catholic Church believes in and continues to this day. The proper understanding of Faith cannot come from the Bible alone because the Bible itself did not come to us complete and independently written. The Bible is a product of Divine Inspiration, Sacred Tradition and the judgment of the Magisterium (the Teaching Authority) of the Church. This is no way lessens the authority or inerrancy of the Bible because the “other forces” that created the Bible are equally spiritual and protected from error. In fact, without Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Church one could not be sure the right books were selected to be in the Bible. These “other forces” continue to exist in the Church today.
Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible, the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are necessary to develop a full understanding of the Faith and to worship God in the manner he has designed and designated. All three, inform Catholic faith and thought on every issue. Some things, like the words of Baptism, might be explicitly stated in scripture. Other things, like Confession to a Priest, may only be alluded to in scripture but firmly rooted in Sacred Tradition. At all times, the divine Teaching Authority of the Church prevents error from corrupting the Faith.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the collected wisdom of this process. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it say God’s nature is a trinity. The Catechism explains God’s nature as a trinity and lists all of the Bible verses, Church councils, and saintly works that support, prove, document and discuss this concept. The Catechism certainly does not replace the Bible but rather, it synthesizes the Bible, the teaching of the Church and history into a coherent form. From the Prologue:
The Aim and Intended Readership of this Catechism:
This Catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of the Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. It' principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries.
This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the people of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechism, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for allChristian faithful.
The Catechism can be referenced for free on line at: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.shtml , or at the Vatican website. It is an excellent reference for all Christians because in considering the theology of almost any issue you can find an inventory of all the scripture verses that inform that theology. (Of course, you can then decide whether or not you agree with it. J ).
10 Comments
Scott September 03, 2010
The canon was decided by the second century.
Christian leaders in the second century recognized the canon of the New Testament and accepted the apostolic writings as Holy Scripture on equal authority with the Old Testament. God gave them wisdom in this process and they did not need to wait for the statements of councils that came centuries later (Jn. 16:13; 17:8; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Jn. 2:20).
Irenaeus (125-192), for example, in his extant writings, made 1,800 quotations from the New Testament books and used them “in such a way as to imply that they had for some time been considered as of unquestioned authority” (Herbert Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 140). Irenaeus accepted the four Gospels, and four only, as Scripture.
Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quoted from and acknowledged the four Gospels and most other New Testament books, calling them “divine Scriptures.”
Tertullian (150-220) made 7,200 citations from the New Testament books and accepted them as Scripture.
The Latin Itala translation, which was probably made in the second century, “contained all the books that now make up the New Testament” (John Hentz, History of the Lutheran Version, p. 59).
A list of New Testament Scriptures dating to the latter half of the second century was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy, in 1740. This second-century list contains all of the 27 books of the New Testament canon (Hentz, p. 60).
Thus the completed New Testament Scriptures were being circulated and accepted by God’s people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of the modernistic textual scholars who write today about these early centuries deny, or totally overlook, the working of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and canonicity of the New Testament. The Apostles were not left to their own devices to transcribe the record of Christ, nor were the early Christians left to their own devices to recognize which writings were Scripture (1 Thess. 2:13). The words of the New Testament are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ through divine inspiration, and the Lord’s sheep know the voice of their Good Shepherd and can discern His voice from false shepherds (John 10:4, 5, 27).
Dave VT September 04, 2010
Scott,
An excellent addition to the discussion, well written and very informative.
One question, is the Lord’s sheep discerning the voice of the Shepherd apply only to what books are scripture or apply to what scripture means as well?
B/c when I look around, I see a lot of differnet people all supposedly following the same shepherd and many saying to do so in multiple different ways. I see many people reading the scripture and comming to multiple different conclusions.
If only Jesus, our Shepherd, had told us some way to discern who was the true shepherd, the ture voice. Let me look in my Bible and see if I can find somehting…..
hold on…
Oh wait ...Here’s something:
Matt. 18:15 to 17, Jesus says, “Go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
It seems there is someone in this world that might have authority to settle disputes. Hmmm…
Scott September 04, 2010
Except Matthew 18:17 was not verse stating that the world needs a group of men to explain what the Bible says. Especially when that group determines unbiblical doctrines such as that Mary must have been sinless in order to have had Jesus Christ—where in the Bible is that taught?
I direct you to read 1 Corinthians 6, especially verse 4:
1Co 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
Looking online at photos of the pope and cardinals, they do not look like they are the “least esteemed.”
Matthew 18:15-17 is not about setting up a Bible authority, but the context is about the offended man and how he is to treat the brother that offended.
Dave VT September 04, 2010
Got it, Matthew 18 is about how to treat a brother that causes offense but the part about taking it to the Church and the church have authority to address the dispute ... that part is just extra meaningless stuff stuck in for ... well … It doesn’t matter, scripture is plain in its meaning .. No, scripture must be read in its context ... no, it’s just clear to the sheep what the shepherd is saying. ... Got it!
As for the Immaculate Conception of Mary, it’s hard when you just toss out new subjects that are detailed theological issues. Frankly, it’s a way of debating that is disingenuous and that is done to create the false impression that one side can’t provide sufficient answers. Therefore, I’ll just have to take a shortcut to provide an answer for the people you might be inadvertently misleading. However, I won’t discuss it further with you today, if you would like to discuss any topic on another day that is fine. From Catholic.com:
An implicit reference can also be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”
Over the centuries, the Fathers and doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (an instrument of Israel’s redemption). If this box was created with such honor—to carry a stick, some bread, and stone tablets—how much more should Mary be made a worthy dwelling place for God himself? She is the new Ark of the Covenant because she carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the instrument of our redemption, Jesus’ body.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would seem to be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box and not sanctifying the womb who carried the Holy One himself. After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 [NAB]).
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp
Tony York September 04, 2010
I am sorry, Dave. But I disagree with you totally on the ‘sinlessness’ of Mary. If Mary had been able to live a sinless life, then there would not have been a need for Christ to die for all because it would have been within humanity’s ability to live under the law in a sinless state.
The Old Testament is a clear witness that mankind could not keep the law.
“For ALL have sinned…”
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. “
“Our righteousness is as filthy rags..”
I am not saying that we should not honor Mary as the mother of Christ, but we should also be careful not to invent traditions or religious statutes that cannot be supported by scripture.
Scott September 04, 2010
If Mary had led a sinless life, then she would have had no need for a Saviour. And yet, she refers to Her Saviour:
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, (47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.
Second, if Jesus Christ needed a sinless vessel to be born in, then wouldn’t Mary have needed a sinless vessel to have been born in?
Scott September 04, 2010
As for original topic, my first post established that people already knew what the canon was before the vote in 382. It took the church a few years to finally determine and vote what the books of the NT were. There were a few Councils of Hippo before it happened.
Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this.
First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, “The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century” and “The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.
Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time “officially” cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church “officially” cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).
Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, “We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church.” Can we follow such reasoning?
Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
* 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
* 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
* 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
* 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
* 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
* 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
* 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
* 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
* Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
Scott September 04, 2010
Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. “And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea.” (Col. 4:16). “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).
Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources.
A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.
Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.
In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a “church” born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible.
Dave VT September 04, 2010
Tony - indeed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a complex doctrine, which is why I said I could not go into on a tangent today. Technically speaking the doctrine states that Mary was preserved from sin b/c she was saved by Christ before his birth into this world. Since God stands outside of time this is not impossible for him. Further this explains was Mary praised Jesus as Lord. Compare that, Christ was fully God and fully man, yet he did not sin. Scripture like “all have sinned” often have these narrow exceptions. I hope you take the time to read the entire article I linked to, I think you will find it interesting an even if you don’ agree with it you will see that it is logical, well reasoned and based in Scripture (even if you believe that basis is not sufficient).
Scott - generally I don’t take issue with any of the facts you state. However, the facts you state don’t prove the suppositions you say they support. In fact, they tend to support my position. What I said was that as the cannon of scripture developed the Church recognized that the books TRADITIONALLY USED by the Churches as inspired books. The fact that multiple Church fathers quoted the books just goes to prove this point. But many of the fathers also debated what books were in the cannon. Some lobbied for other books but based on their lack of traditional use or incorrect teachings the Church, using its authority, rejected those books. For example, Jerome argued against many of the books but once the list was recognized by the Council he dutifully translated all the listed books into the Vulgate. This was complete bible that went forward basically unchanged for the next 1200 years.
As for your feeling that the Catholic Church is not the historical Church founded by Jesus, I would just say that no other Church can even make an attempt at the historical claim. Since Jesus said that Peter, had the keys, the Apostles had the authority to bind and loose, and that his Church would survive even against the gates of hell, I think scripture is in my favor on this point as well.
Scott September 05, 2010
Despite the spin you place upon it, Dave, what my posts have shown is that the canon was determined before the Councils of Hippo. It was not necessary for the catholic church to put its stamp of approval on it.
In fact, history shows that a lineage of believers tried to stay away from the organization that eventually became the catholic church. These believers were bullied, threatened, and killed if they did not join the growing conglomeration of churches.
Add Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.