Roman Catholic and The Bible.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:18 pm

It's been weighing heavy on my heart that I may be pulling people from their faith. I know you are all saying to yourselves, "he wishes!". In my morning devotions I read a short piece written by our priest. The one that hits home;

Father give us a respect for Faith. May we recognize our relationship all Believers, our Community with all who seek the Lord. Help us to foster and encourage, whatever it's form. We will be the people who know the Lord, people who accept that the Lord is able to lead people. May we never seek to turn people from their faith and may all believers find in us friends who trust in Faith.

After I called The Narrow Path last Thursday and talked with Steve I felt a certain uncomfortableness between the two of us. Since I have been calling The Narrow Path and gotten to know Steve I consider him a friend and I don't want to loose that. Steve has always said, "the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth". He's right and I will pray that He leads us to all Truth.

In saying this, once I answer Darin and Steve on a couple of outstanding questions, I think I will sign off from this forum for now. I really enjoy this and thank Jim from Connecticut for inviting me here.

Tom

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:09 am

darinhouston wrote:I found this interesting piece from http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm....

The fate of non-Catholics, as stated prior to Vatican II:

Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered "one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages..." fn1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed....Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." fn2
The last sentence in the original Latin reads: "Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." fn3

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) wrote a Papal bull in 1441 CE titled Cantate Domino. One paragraph reads:
"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." fn4

The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II:

The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium" (1964) is one of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II"). The Council was held in Rome between 1962 and 1965. Lumen Gentium" contains in its Chapter 1 an essay on "The Mystery of the church." Sections 14 to 16 describe the potential for salvation of:
  • Followers of the Catholic Church,
  • Members of other Christian denominations, and
  • Believers of non-Christian religions. 5


The language is difficult to follow for a lay person. However, an "Assessment of this Council" was written "as an AID to study by Catholic Students of the Second Vatican Council. They contain material, some written in a journalistic style, for the American reader." In the section "The Constitution of the Church" the assessment reads:
"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize." fn5.

The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." fn6
This statement would seem to include the possibility that seekers after God may attain salvation, even though they have not concluded that God exists. Presumably, the authors of this document define "God" in Roman Catholic terms as a super-human intelligence and personality with specific attributes, such as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneficient, omnipresent, etc. This statement indicates that even some Agnostics and Atheists could be saved and attain heaven, if they sincerely sought this Christian God. It also seems to imply that many Buddhists -- those who follow traditions that have no concept of such a deity -- will be relegated to Hell after death.

The "Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" (1964) is one of nine decrees of Vatican II. It deals with Ecumenism, which the Catholic Church defines as the reuniting of all Christian faith groups under the authority of the pope. This includes Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and Protestant denominations -- those who "came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church." Section 3 deals with "separated brethren" -- followers of Christian denominations which The document repeats the belief that the Roman Catholic church is the only true Christian church -- the only denomination which "has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace." Other Christian denominations are considered deficient. But the document does recognize that salvation is possible through the Catholic church for followers of those separated faith groups. It recognizes other denominations as fellow Christians:
"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

"Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God." (Footnote references deleted) fn7
The "Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions: Nostra Aetate," (1965) is one of three declarations of Vatican II. fn8 It states that:
  • "[The Christian] God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth."
  • "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions."
  • "God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers..."
  • "...the [Roman Catholic] Church is the new People of God..."
  • "...the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation."

The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed after Vatican II:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), deals with the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church to non-Catholics in Topics 839 to 845. fn9 Some points are:
  • 839: Followers of other religions are referred to as "Those who have not yet received the gospel..." The implication is that they will eventually become united with the Roman Catholic Church.
  • 839 to 841: The Roman Catholic Church has a special relationship to Jews and Muslims because of the common reverence for the patriarch Abraham.
  • 843: Other religions contain "goodness and truth" which are "a preparation for the Gospel."
  • 845: God wishes to "reunite all his children," of all religions who are "scattered and led astray by sin...together into" the Catholic Church.

'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" was published on 2000-AUG-6 by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was released on SEP-5. The document had been ratified and confirmed by the Pope John Paul II on JUN-16 "with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority." fn10 The document appears to have been triggered by the growth in acceptance of "relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism." fn12 It states that:
  • "The full revelation of divine truth is given" in the "mystery of Jesus Christ." No additional revelation is expected in the future.
  • Elements of Christianity were placed in other religions by the Holy Spirit.
  • Jesus is the only savior of mankind.
  • All who are saved achieve this status through the Roman Catholic Church.
  • Salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.
  • The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation."
  • Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."
Has the position of the Roman Catholic Church changed?

At first glance, the Church has changed its teachings about whether a non-Catholic can be saved:
  • In the past, the Church seems to have taken an exclusivist position on the validity of other faith traditions. Numerous popes in the Middle Ages seem to have stated clearly that anyone who is "outside" the Church, who is "not subject to the Roman Pontiff" or is "not living within the Catholic Church" cannot be saved and will not attain Heaven.
  • Numerous statements since the 1960's seem to have stated clearly that the Church has switches to an inclusivist position. They now believe that non-Catholics can have indirect access to salvation, but that their faith may well place serious roadblocks on the path to salvation.
The church tackles this apparent conflict in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Items 846 and 847 attempt to harmonize ancient and recent statements on salvation of non-Christians.

Section 846 by making the following points:
  • In ancient times, the Church Fathers often said that "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation."
  • The church has always taught that:
    • "...all salvation comes from Christ...through the [Catholic] Church..."
    • "...the [Catholic] Church...is necessary for salvation..."
    • "...Christ ...affirmed...the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door."
  • Those who realize the Church's role and who "refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" cannot achieve salvation or attain Heaven after death.
  • This is what various popes meant when they said that there was no salvation outside the church.
Section 847 states that:
  • The above "...is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church."
  • "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." fn9


This attempt at harmonizing leaves many Anglicans, Muslims, Protestants, Wiccans, and followers of other religions in an awkward situation. Many know of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and reject them in favor of the teachings of other groups. That would seem to eliminate any possibility for them to be saved and attain Heaven, according to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catechism's explanation is difficult to harmonize with very specific statements by past popes, which were often referred to by the phrase : "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). According to the Saint Benedict Center, this doctrine of the Catholic Faith "...was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church." fn13

  • Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.
  • Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." From his Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.
  • Pope Eugene IV: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." From his Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)


Protestant denominations and the Anglican Communion would presumably fall under the category of "heretics and schismatics." Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, etc would presumably be considered "Pagans."

An attempt to harmonize Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam Bull is available online. It raises a number of points. One is that this bull was directed at Catholics in France during the 14th century who were not submitting to the Pope. Thus, it would not apply to Protestants. fn11

References:


Darin,

I know that what looks like a contradiction will be hard to explain in a way that will satisfy you. But let me try.

First the RCC doctrine that 'outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' has not changed. What the early Church taught is the same as it teaches now. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it states; "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: He is present to us in His body which is the Church."

I think your belief that there is a contradiction comes from the RCC's clarification of this doctrine. We know it hasn't changed from reading the quote from the Catechism. So, if it's not a contradiction, how can the Church past say; "only through the Church can we reach salvation", and Church present say; "If you truly follow God you have a chance of being saved"!? Once again, the doctrine hasn't changed. So what's going on? It sure sounds like a contradiction.

This doctrine is clarified in saying, 'it's only through the Catholic Church that one finds salvation and those are they that honestly search for God and in the end will come to the Catholic Church. This explanation is much like your belief that all salvation comes only through Jesus! But we know that not all that will be saved will know Jesus.

Steve Gregg may show another view of this. He has often said that he doesn't know if anyone is saved outside of Christ. If they are, like the African out in the bush that has never heard of Jesus, in the end, if he is saved, will be saved through Jesus even if he doesn't know Him in this life. If he's saved, someway he must have been seeking God and the only way to salvation is through Jesus. In the same way salvation comes from the Catholic Church.

I know this is a hard subject and my answer may not satisfy but it's the best I can do.

Tom

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by Paidion » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:12 pm

Tom, I think your explanation makes sense.

Although I and others have a different view of what the Universal (Catholic)Church is, I think we all believe that no one will be saved until they become members of the only Church which Christ founded. However, we can't "join" this Universal Church. We can join clubs. We cannot join the Church of God.

In the most primitive assembly ("church") of disciples, it was the Lord who "added day by day the ones being saved in the same" [Acts 2:47].

So one cannot "join" the Universal Church. He can be joined to the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Universal Church of Jesus Christ, only if God adds him. God adds people to the Church only if they become disciples of Christ. As long as they don't, they are outside the Church, and there is no salvation for them.

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people in which it is necessary to be saved.

That is, it is necessary to be saved in the name of Jesus, and no other.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:45 pm

steve wrote:Tom,

You wrote:
Jesus, even though the Pharisees were corrupt and had lost what God was all about, told the disciples "do whatever they tell you", (Matt 23:2-3)...Jesus knew their God given authority just like centuries before when David's men were going to kill Saul. David said he would not allow it because Saul was God's anointed, (1Sam 24:4-8).


I don't read anywhere of the Pharisees having God-given authority. The only religious authorities known in the Old Testament were priest and prophets. The Pharisees were a man-made movement, arising sometime after the Maccabean Period. They were not established by God, nor did they have God-given authority—which is why Jesus defied their rules continually (e.g., their sabbath expectations, their hand-washing rules, and their "avoidance-of-sinners" policies).

When Jesus told His disciples to do what the Pharisees tell you, it was in the context of their sitting in Moses' seat, in the synagogues (another man-made institution). Why should the disciples obey the things the Pharisees say from Moses' seat? Because that was the seat from which the Law of God was taught, which the disciples were obliged to honor. Therefore, Jesus instructed them, "Do what the Pharisees teach (because that is the Law of God they are talking about), but do not imitate them (because they talk but do not walk the Law)."
Steve,

You may not read that God gave the Pharisees His authority but it is assumed by Jesus. By what Jesus says, by the context of the passage and by other Bible verses.


First; lets look at Matt 23. In verse 2, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." Let's look at what Jesus had to say about authority of the Pharisees.

John 3:10 Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" Jesus implies that Nicodemus, being a Pharisee (John 3:1, "There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.), had the authority to teach His chosen people, Israel.

Matt 5:22, once again Jesus puts authority in the hands of these 'teachers of the Law' the Pharisees. " And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council." This council is the Sanhedrin and included the Pharisees. We see this in John 11:47, "Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, "What shall we do? For this Man works many signs." Acts 5:34, "Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, ...". Acts 23:1+6, "Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council,...But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees,..."

Paul's autobiography in Phil 3:5 "I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;...", he shows some authority concerning the Law. In Acts 23:6 Paul states, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee;" putting some clout in being a Pharisee.


Second; look at Matt 23:2, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.", in particular Moses' seat. What is this Moses' seat?

If we go back to Moses we see in Ex18:13, " on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening." This, it would seem to be, is where the term Moses' seat came from. What is Moses doing while seated? He is judging the people of Israel.

Archaeological evidence that in the the synagogues of that day there was a stone chair placed in front upon which the leaders of the synagogue would sit to expound upon the Law and the Prophets. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p 425, reads, "From here, it is supposed, teachers expounded the Mosaic Law. This seat symbolized their authority as interpreters of the Law in unbroken succession from Moses". From The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p 472, reads, "Scholars regularly observe that later Palestinian synagogues often had a special chair for teaching, which came to be known as a 'chair of Moses' and thus symbolized the succession of teachers from Moses' day".


Third; in Matt 21:33, "Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower.", Jesus talks about His vineyard. The vineyard is Israel, (Isa 5:7, "For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts [is] the house of Israel,...". The people taking care of the vineyard, in part, are the Pharisees. We know this because in Matt 21:45 they understand the parable, "Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them." Jesus in a round about way is saying the Pharisees have a role in teaching and caring for the House of Israel.


Forth; in Matt 23:3, "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." Jesus never denies that the Pharisees have authority to teach from Moses' seat! Jesus never denies the authority or the existence of Moses' seat! Jesus says to do whatever they tell you. He isn't saying they, the Pharisees, are just reading Scripture. They are expounding on what is read!

There's no question that the Pharisees, it seems most of them, were over stepping their bounds and keeping the people away from a loving God. But it cannot be denied that Jesus saw their authority.

Tom

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:53 am

It is possible to deny that Jesus saw their authority.

Most of your points simply recognize that there were some Pharisees among the leaders of Israel, but most of them had no role of official leadership in Israel. They were students and teachers of the law, but they did not hold an appointed office. There were about 3000 Pharisees in the time of Christ, as I recall from Josephus (it could have been 6000, but I believe it was 3000). Most of them did not sit on the Sanhedrin, and most of those men who did comprise that court were Sadducees, not Pharisees.

Those few Pharisees that sat on the high court (the Sanhedrin) had recognized authority in Israel, but not because of their being Pharisees. It was because they were council members. The rest of the Pharisees did not hold such offices of authority. Thus it is not correct to say that Pharisees had a God-given authority.

That there was a seat in the synagogue called "Moses' seat" (to which Jesus referred) is not, to my knowledge, disputed. It was the seat where the law was expounded—often, though not always, by Pharisees. The fact that Jesus often taught in the synagogues proves that the Pharisees had no monopoly on that position.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and he was also called "the teacher of Israel." However, the latter title speaks of a special recognition of that man in particular—not of Pharisees in general.

When Paul mentioned his previous role as a Pharisee, he was not claiming that, as such, he had possessed some "God-given authority." Not only does he say nothing suggesting this, but he outright denies it, saying, instead, that he regarded the whole position and prestige he had then held to be nothing but "loss" and "rubbish" (Phil.3:7-8). Pharisees were respected as religious leaders on the popular level, but Jesus never referred to them as God-ordained, and seemed only to view them as pretenders to spirituality.

His exhortation to obey them was in the context of their expositions of scripture from Moses' Seat. Jesus apparently thought that most of what they would say about the law would be safe enough to recommend obeying, but it was clear that he believed their expositions to be inadequate and unenlightened, which is why He had to say so many times, "You have heard [from the teachers in the synagogues] that it was said...but I say unto you..."

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by darinhouston » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:08 am

I hesitate to post this because of the way James White has been received by others here. Yes, his motivations and tone are obvious, but his points are good ones. I recognize this is not the same as saying that the Magisterium or Pope has been inconsistent, but practically speaking Tom if your primary justification for the benefits of the RCC against a sola scriptura Protestant church with doctrine "all over the place" is to have uniform and reliable doctrine, then the fact that some of its leading teachers can (so similarly to the Protestants) have widely divergent views with "private interpretations" on such things seems to teach away from the practical benefits even if we were to concede an infallible Magisterium/Papacy. If practically they don't promulgate interpretive commentaries and teach only from those commentaries, then what practical benefit is there to have such a theoretically infallible organization?

James White -- "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #5

03/15/2009 - James Swan
Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

1 John 5:16-17 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.


Let's look at a section of Biblical exegesis from Patrick Madrid's Where Is That In The Bible? [Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 2001]. On page 108, Madrid explains what 1 John 5:16-17 means:
23. Mortal And Venial Sins
In the following passage, St. John mentions that there are two categories of sin. Venial sins weaken the life of grace in the soul and weaken the soul's ability to avoid sin. Mortal sins, by their very nature, literally kill the soul by purposefully eradicating sanctifying grace. The church teaches that all grave (i.e., mortal, deadly) sins must be confessed in the sacrament of penance in which formal absolution is received from the priest. 1 John 5 16-17: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is a sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."
According to Madrid, these verses are clear biblical proof for the distinction between mortal and venial sins. The back of Madrid's book explains it's purpose is to "interpret the Bible correctly" and to "steer clear of common mistakes many people make when reading Scripture." The book explains Madrid's credentials include being the founder and publisher of Envoy magazine, a published author of some apologetics books, and the host of an EWTN television series.

To contrast Madrid's interpretation with another Catholic source, let's see what Raymond Brown's The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary says. Brown doesn't appear to have the same caliber of credentials Mr. Madrid has in order to interpret scripture. Brown was only the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, the first person to have been president of all three major biblical societies: The Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the International Society for New Testament Studies. From 1972 to 1978 he was the only American on the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, an appointment that Pope Paul VI said is only given to outstanding scholars.

Brown's take on this text is much different than Mr. Madrid's. On page 121, Brown states,
First John is cautious. For most sins, the prayers will be heard; but there is a sin so serious that John does not encourage prayer for it. Evidently the readers of the letter knew all about this sin. We are not so well informed (except that we should avoid identifying "sin unto death" with mortal sin, and "a sin not unto death" with venial sin). Probably the sin for First John was joining the secession, which was a form of apostasy, a sin elsewhere judged harshly.
Brown makes a similar statement in An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library) on page 388. Commenting on these verses he states, "He is not making the later theological distinction between mortal and venial sin." Who's right, Madrid or Brown? Without the Roman Catholic magisterium telling us, each is entitled to his own interpretation.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:47 pm

darinhouston wrote:I hesitate to post this because of the way James White has been received by others here. Yes, his motivations and tone are obvious, but his points are good ones. I recognize this is not the same as saying that the Magisterium or Pope has been inconsistent, but practically speaking Tom if your primary justification for the benefits of the RCC against a sola scriptura Protestant church with doctrine "all over the place" is to have uniform and reliable doctrine, then the fact that some of its leading teachers can (so similarly to the Protestants) have widely divergent views with "private interpretations" on such things seems to teach away from the practical benefits even if we were to concede an infallible Magisterium/Papacy. If practically they don't promulgate interpretive commentaries and teach only from those commentaries, then what practical benefit is there to have such a theoretically infallible organization?

James White -- "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #5

03/15/2009 - James Swan
Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

1 John 5:16-17 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.


Let's look at a section of Biblical exegesis from Patrick Madrid's Where Is That In The Bible? [Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 2001]. On page 108, Madrid explains what 1 John 5:16-17 means:
23. Mortal And Venial Sins
In the following passage, St. John mentions that there are two categories of sin. Venial sins weaken the life of grace in the soul and weaken the soul's ability to avoid sin. Mortal sins, by their very nature, literally kill the soul by purposefully eradicating sanctifying grace. The church teaches that all grave (i.e., mortal, deadly) sins must be confessed in the sacrament of penance in which formal absolution is received from the priest. 1 John 5 16-17: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is a sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."
According to Madrid, these verses are clear biblical proof for the distinction between mortal and venial sins. The back of Madrid's book explains it's purpose is to "interpret the Bible correctly" and to "steer clear of common mistakes many people make when reading Scripture." The book explains Madrid's credentials include being the founder and publisher of Envoy magazine, a published author of some apologetics books, and the host of an EWTN television series.

To contrast Madrid's interpretation with another Catholic source, let's see what Raymond Brown's The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary says. Brown doesn't appear to have the same caliber of credentials Mr. Madrid has in order to interpret scripture. Brown was only the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, the first person to have been president of all three major biblical societies: The Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the International Society for New Testament Studies. From 1972 to 1978 he was the only American on the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, an appointment that Pope Paul VI said is only given to outstanding scholars.

Brown's take on this text is much different than Mr. Madrid's. On page 121, Brown states,
First John is cautious. For most sins, the prayers will be heard; but there is a sin so serious that John does not encourage prayer for it. Evidently the readers of the letter knew all about this sin. We are not so well informed (except that we should avoid identifying "sin unto death" with mortal sin, and "a sin not unto death" with venial sin). Probably the sin for First John was joining the secession, which was a form of apostasy, a sin elsewhere judged harshly.
Brown makes a similar statement in An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library) on page 388. Commenting on these verses he states, "He is not making the later theological distinction between mortal and venial sin." Who's right, Madrid or Brown? Without the Roman Catholic magisterium telling us, each is entitled to his own interpretation.
Darin,

I thought your question was about Catholic Doctrine? Now you're bringing up Scripture interpretation. If you want to know whether the Church still holds the Doctrine of different categories of sin (mortal and venial), yes they do.

Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says;

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

129 Cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17.

Tom

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:11 am

Hi Tom,

You wrote:
I thought your question was about Catholic Doctrine? Now you're bringing up Scripture interpretation.

Most of our disagreements have been on the question of who it is that interprets the Bible for us. We derive our doctrines from the Bible. The differences in doctrine that any of us hold between ourselves and the Catholic Church, or even each other, are due to our differing interpretations of scripture (e.g., John 6 and Jesus' statements about eating His flesh and drinking His blood). You assured us that the Catholic Church has the solution to such differences of interpretation, because the Magisterium authoritatively interprets scripture for you. The illustration posted by Darin simply shows that, when it comes to interpreting a given passage of scripture in its context, Catholic teachers can differ from one another as much as Protestants can—meaning that the presence of the Church's teaching authority has not eliminated the problems that you see among Protestants.

Your comment makes it clear that for you, agreement on doctrine does not arise from agreement about scriptural interpretation. This only means that, among Catholics, doctrine is independent of scriptural interpretation (which we all knew anyway). In Catholicism, the doctrine is decided first—independently of scripture. Various scriptural interpretations are then entertained as varying ways to support that doctrine. But since the doctrine arises independently of what the scriptures teach (that's what interpretation determines), why even waste time with us Protestants trying to show us that the scriptures teach your doctrines? You would believe them (and do) whether or not the scriptures teach them, because someone else teaches them, whose authority is more definitive to you than the authority of scripture.

Since Protestants claim that the authority of God's Word is infinitely greater than the opinions of mere men, Protestants will continue to discuss and explore the correct interpretations of scriptures, and will reach our doctrinal commitments from those considerations. It seems that you are not really involved in the same way in such discussions, because someone else has already decided for you what you must believe. All appearances of finding scriptural support for your doctrines is really just window dressing, and seems to become a mere game that some Catholic apologists like to play with Protestants. That is, the Catholic pretends to be interested in what the correct interpretation of the Bible may be (because that's what Protestants are interested in, and the only way to get Protestants to join in the game), but all the while, it really doesn't matter to the Catholic what may come up in the discussions of the Bible. He does not care about that. His mind is made up already. It's only the Protestant who is expected to be teachable.

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by tom » Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:19 pm

steve wrote:Hi Tom,

You wrote:
I thought your question was about Catholic Doctrine? Now you're bringing up Scripture interpretation.

Most of our disagreements have been on the question of who it is that interprets the Bible for us. We derive our doctrines from the Bible. The differences in doctrine that any of us hold between ourselves and the Catholic Church, or even each other, are due to our differing interpretations of scripture (e.g., John 6 and Jesus' statements about eating His flesh and drinking His blood). You assured us that the Catholic Church has the solution to such differences of interpretation, because the Magisterium authoritatively interprets scripture for you. The illustration posted by Darin simply shows that, when it comes to interpreting a given passage of scripture in its context, Catholic teachers can differ from one another as much as Protestants can—meaning that the presence of the Church's teaching authority has not eliminated the problems that you see among Protestants.

Your comment makes it clear that for you, agreement on doctrine does not arise from agreement about scriptural interpretation. This only means that, among Catholics, doctrine is independent of scriptural interpretation (which we all knew anyway).
Therein lies the difference between our beliefs. You have the Bible alone where Catholics have the Church. The Church didn't come out of the Bible, the Bible came out of the Church. The Catholic doctrines are not someones private interpretation, but the tradition of the Church through Scripture.

RCC Catechism; 113 Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

In Catholicism, the doctrine is decided first—independently of scripture. Various scriptural interpretations are then entertained as varying ways to support that doctrine. But since the doctrine arises independently of what the scriptures teach (that's what interpretation determines), why even waste time with us Protestants trying to show us that the scriptures teach your doctrines? You would believe them (and do) whether or not the scriptures teach them, because someone else teaches them, whose authority is more definitive to you than the authority of scripturequ.
But you see, Scripture does teach our doctrines! I have shown where Scripture shows our doctrine but you refuse them because they don't agree with your interpretation. Only yours, the Bible according to Steve Gregg's interpretation, is truth. Scripture has all authority! It's in the interpretation where we get into trouble. You never fully answered why your interpretation of the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit, is different from someone else who says they are guided by the Holy Spirit?
Since Protestants claim that the authority of God's Word is infinitely greater than the opinions of mere men,
But isn't your interpretation, "an opinion of mere men"?
Protestants will continue to discuss and explore the correct interpretations of scriptures, and will reach our doctrinal commitments from those considerations. It seems that you are not really involved in the same way in such discussions, because someone else has already decided for you what you must believe.
You will be on an endless "starting over" interpretation. When you die the next teacher will have to start over and prove all that you call doctrine. He may, and more then likely will, find some doctrine different from yours. Steve, yours is an endless cycle that can never have any authority other than Scripture which can't be agreed upon!
All appearances of finding scriptural support for your doctrines is really just window dressing, and seems to become a mere game that some Catholic apologists like to play with Protestants. That is, the Catholic pretends to be interested in what the correct interpretation of the Bible may be (because that's what Protestants are interested in, and the only way to get Protestants to join in the game), but all the while, it really doesn't matter to the Catholic what may come up in the discussions of the Bible. He does not care about that. His mind is made up already. It's only the Protestant who is expected to be teachable.
I have to tell you, as a Catholic, I have learned so much from your teaching. I've grown as a Christian listening to your teaching and also in our short debates on your show. I think the Bible is so rich that 'most', not all, views can be edifying. There seems to always be something we can glean from one another. We are all teachable, even the Pope! Is there something wrong with Catholics having their minds made up? If it's true why change?

Tom

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”