Bible Scholar of the Year

  Daily Planet religion correspondent Media Halfways reports that Nilsson Publishers (A division of Nilsson/Schmilsson, a subsidiary of Rambling House) has announced the publication of a special edition of the Holy Bible that takes the inspiration for its cover from a recent issue of Time magazine.

The special Sola Scriptura edition features a mirror (made of lightweight reflective Mylar) affixed on the front cover, above the words "Bible Scholar of the Year".

Nilsson Publishers' CEO Miles Blandish told the Daily Planet "This is part of an ongoing effort to give the Holy Scriptures new relevance by presenting them in a hip, culturally aware way that grabs the attention of the public. We realize that part of our mission is to stay current, to keep up with trends... to be phat and dope and poppin' fresh.".

Time magazine recently revealed their "Man of the Year" issue for 2006, with a mirrored cover that reflects the reader's face. Blandish admitted "Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn't thought of this before. It fits in so well with the idea of Sola Scriptura... what we are saying with this cover is; Who should you really count on to interpret the Bible? The answer? It's right there on the cover!... You! Why rely on someone else who might have it all wrong, when you can get it straight from the horse's mouth?... so to speak.".

Nilsson publishes mainly for the Evangelical Christian market. Evangelical Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to answer any question of faith, and that any sincere believer can understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So, what does the Bible mean?... "Whoa, whoa!" Blandish answers when asked about the meaning of Scripture "... that's not for me to say... you have to decide for yourself. The question is, what does it mean... to you?".

The Sola Scriptura edition is available at bookstores, or on the Nilsson/Schmilsson website, for the cost of one million Quatloos (hardback).

Comments

[Fr. John Pecoraro]

Boy! That hits the nail on the head, dont it?

[Jordan Potter]

Excellent! That about says it all, doesn't it?

[Inocencio]

Tim J.,

You better register a trademark and fast!

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

You (bible scholar that you are) can jump into the fire, but you'll never be free.

[bill912]

The above comment is as clear as the commenter's handle.

[Inocencio]

bill912,

The above commenter was talking to his Sola Scriptura edition, not us.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[Leo]

Also available in a loose leaf ring binder edition to allow the wise reader to decide on a book-by-book basis which books should be included.

DIY canon by the person most inspired - You! not some corrupt Papist institution.

[Thomas E. Vaughan]

I recall reading somewhere a symbolic representation of the fall of the angels. In this representation, all of the angels were created initially good and so were able to see God in a direct sense. When Satan and other angels turned against God, however, it is as though they were bound up in a mirrored room and each could thereafter see only his own reflection. The idea of selfishness appears somehow encoded in this representation.

I don't remember where I read this figurative representation, but if there be any truth to it, then this mirror-covered Bible would seem a spooky thing indeed.

[Danny Garland Jr.]

Brilliant!

[Jim Whall]

I have exercised my authority to read and interpreted holy scripture. I have decided it says the Catholic Church is the true Church. I hereby surrender such authority to that Church.

*grin*

[Jared]

Coming soon: the Choose Your Own Adventure Bible.

You are: a first century Jewish man hailing (with your mom) from the podunk town of Nazareth. Your teachings have fascinated a bunch of fishermen, tax collectors and ex-prostitutes, while at the same time causing the constabulary to drum the fingers on their breast-plates in nervous silence and royally hacking off the local religious leaders.

Your quest: to save the world!

Your latest quandry: Recently, you've made some statements about eating your flesh that have confused some of your followers, caused others to walk, and again hacked off the local religious leaders.

Your choices:

One: Stand by your statements and, hey, what the heck, emphasize them a couple of time using words that reflect the animal nature of "gnawing," etc. You said it and you meant it, darn it! If you choose this option, turn to page 777.

Two: Rephrase it in a way that makes clear the symbolic nature of what you said. End with saying, "Hey guys, come back. I was jus' playin' wi'choo." If you choose this option, turn to page 13.

Three: Change the subject and say, "Isn't it great that we agree with all these wacky Pagans? I mean, truth is relative, right guys? There are no absolutes, darn it. Not a single one." You then join hands and start singing folk songs to distract them from the absolute statement you just made. If you choose this option, turn to page 666.

Four: Shrug, sit down in the dirt, assume a lotus position and stare at your navel. If you choose this option, turn to page Q.

[jmn]

It would be very easy to make a Sola Fide edition, completely non existent at zero cost. The vendor does not have to sell it and the believer does not have to buy it.

[Labrialumn]

Very apologetic. An example to evangelists everywhere.

Or was that to Count Tilly's troops?

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

Protestantism doesn't teach that the Bible is sufficient to answer any question on faith, rather sufficient for those issues of faith we need to know:

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (Westminster Confession of Faith)

[kalej]

destined to be a classic for sure.

The spoof, not the product.

[Cajun Nick]

Tim J.,

Great post. I love your comments in the comboxes, too, btw.

But, I've also got to applaud Jared. As a big fan of Edward Packard's "Choose Your Own Adventures" books, I thought Jared's comment was great. (I tried to convince my daugher to buy some CYOA books just this afternoon!)

[Mary]

so -- your quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith is something we don't need to know?

0:)

[Margaret]

Other than the Nilsson/Schmilsson rhyme, is there some deeper meaning to the name Nilsson that I'm missing?

[Tim J.]

Jeb-

Your comment, which I appreciate, none the less highlights an element of Protestant thought that I NOW see (being an adult convert) as a profound deficiency, that is; the tendency toward minimalism.

Let'say (for the sake of argument) that a sincere reader CAN (with the help of the Holy Spirit) glean everything necessary for salvation from the Bible alone (and leaving aside the question of who we look to even to tell us what the Bible IS).

Is that ALL that the Lord desires for us in this life? What if (by ignoring the remainder of the Deposit of Faith... the Sacraments, the Magisterium, etc... in other words, by missing the Church) we are saved, but only "as through fire"?

Do we REALLY want to define the Christian faith in terms of the LEAST we can possibly get by with in order to gain salvation? Is faith alone sufficient for salvation? Sure, in a pinch... but isn't it likely that God wants MORE for each of us than to just limp into heaven smelling of smoke?

Protestantism has taken a kernel of Truth (that faith alone CAN save in a pinch, which the Church acknowledges) and has isolated and universalized it in such a way as to exclude every other aspect of the Gospel. Faith alone might save a person, but God wants to transform us, to sanctify us, and to unite us to himself TOTALLY, even in this life. This requires the environment of the Church Christ established, and access to the whole deposit of faith. We cannot even be baptized outside the Church... and Baptism is only the gate!

A person - sincere or not - MIGHT be able to find salvation through reading the Bible alone, but he/she also might NOT be able to. This is abundantly clear... there are mountains of evidence to demonstrate it. The sincere, prayerful searching of the Bible alone is simply no guarantee - even of salvation. Where do you think cults come from?

We need to think of the faith in terms of ALL that God desires for us in this life - not just the MINIMUM required for SOME to be saved - and that means looking to the Church Christ established.

[Tim J.]

Oh, did NO ONE get my Nilsson reference?

What's The Point?

[Dr. Eric]

Tim J.

My dad is a big music buff.

So put the lime in the coconut and drink 'em both up 'cause I can't live if livin' is without you!

[Tim J.]

Okay, Dr. Eric, I feel a little better.

But what about Media Halfways?

[bill912]

I can't hear you, Tim; everybody's talkin' at me.

[Tim J.]

Actually, someone earlier on DID get the Nilsson reference, but I won't say who.

[Dr. Eric]

Pilgrim's Regress

[bill912]

And your point?

[Tim J.]

And this is relevant to the post HOW... ?

[bill912]

We seem to have a troll, Tim, using various handles and posting on several threads. Has Jimmy lent you Glamdring?

[bill912]

I guess he has. While you're at it, there's one on "My General Christmas Present."

[Tim J.]

The above unrelated posts have been deleted. Dumping lengthy, irrelevant comments into the thread is rude enough... the bigotry makes it downright obnoxious.

If you really have a burr under your saddle about a particular topic, get your own blog.

Any similar comments will also be deleted.

At least as far as my posts are concerned, "You shall not pass!".

[Tim J.]

Sorry, bill, I can only get medieval on comments to posts I have written myself.

[A Simple Sinner]

Of course all of this presumes the reader can actually READ, and afford a Bible, and has time to read it... The VAST majority of Christians through the ages had no such luxury.

Given all the failings in my life, if someone where to give me this Bible I would likely feel a bit unnerved. IF I were my own best expert, I would be in trouble.

[Tim J.]

"Other than the Nilsson/Schmilsson rhyme, is there some deeper meaning to the name Nilsson that I'm missing?"

Also, Margaret, "Nilsson" is a play on the name of a HUGE real-life bible publisher.

[Dr. Eric]

Tim J.

Was I right about Pilgrim's Regress?

[patrick]

Oh, Mr. Tim, are you referring to Thomas Nelson?

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

Protestants don't deny that God wants to transform Christians. As the WCF says:

"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]"

As far as minimalism goes, the whole emphasis of contemporary Roman Catholicism toward non-Catholics and non-Christians is minimalism writ large. If, as the pope believes, the Koran is the "holy book of a great religion," then isn't Rome preaching a minimlist view of truth?

In my years as an Evangelical, I have never heard the "minimalism" that I was taught as a Rome Catholic growing up (be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc.)

[Tim J.]

"be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc."

That is not Church teaching, Jeb. You know that.

And, YES, Dr. Eric, well done!

I remember laughing so hard at the first chapter of Pilgrims Regress, because it was so TRUE to the way I was brought up.

It may not be C.S. Lewis's best, but it is worthwhile and entertaining. I still find it very relevant.

[Tim J.]

Also, Jeb, most Protestants (I can't say all) look at salvation as one event, and sanctification another.

In Catholic thought, they are different aspects of the same process.

We are saved THROUGH sanctification, so "doing your best" is no small part of that.

[Slowboy]

In my years as an Evangelical, I have never heard the "minimalism" that I was taught as a Rome Catholic growing up (be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc.)

The tragedy of another catholic chased away from the church by the liberal we're-all-the-same ilk.

Jeb, you've been reading this blog for a while. You know this isn't what the church teaches but what some self appointed reformers were/are trying to do to the church. This is new to Catholism but not to Protestents. cf: Unitarian church and many others. You're smart enough to filter through the misguided Protestent trash, why the insistence this is what the catholic church is about. That's like saying all catholics cant spell just cause Slowboy cant.

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

But I think an organization should be evaluated by what it teaches and what it permits to be taught. For example, Benedict and JP II teach evolution and higher critical views of Genesis. They permit people to teach at Catholic universities and seminaries who deny the historicity of Genesis and Adam and Eve. (One member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission said that Genesis 1-11 is as historical as Little Red Riding Hood.)

Shouldn't I as a Christian look at what the Bible says about creation and compare it to what these men teach/taught?

[Cory]

Okay, as another Protestant in the group, I'd just like to say that I think that this post was actually funny.

Jeb, there is no uniform agreement among Catholics or Protestants about how to read Genesis. I'm curious to know your sources, though, on who said those things. ("One member of the Pontifical Commission..." tells me nothing. "Billy Bob Jim Joe Roy Cardinal Timmins of Appalacia said to Us Magazine on December 8, 2004..." would tell me more.) To say that the Bible is infallible does not require an anally-retentivly close reading of the Creation account. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old as scientists estimate, would that shake your faith in God? Would that decimate the texts? Or could there be alternative interpretations of the words that would allow for that time frame to exist?

I agree with the Popes. We should study the Creation account closer and compare it with the science finds instead of just immediately jumping on the defensive the way things have happened in the past. Science is more prevalent than Christianity in society now and we should treat the situation according, "turning the other cheek" as Jesus commands and trying to be the bigger person here.

In summary, when you make a deliberately inflammatory comment like that, please cite your sources. I don't recall the Catholic Church ever supporting evolution, just calling for additional study. I assume that they want to study the position in order to better refute it.

[Tim J.]

"Shouldn't I as a Christian look at what the Bible says about creation and compare it to what these men teach/taught?"

Do what I do, Greg; read the Bible AND the encyclicals and conciliar documents, AND the Catechism, and THEN compare to what you hear from some priest or bishop.

I try not to listen to kooks, whether nominally Protestant or Catholic.

[Tim J.]

Not that I think a non-literal reading of Genesis is kooky!

Faithful Christians may understand Genesis in various ways, as long as a few basics are maintained.

[AnotherCoward]

Oookay. So lets look at Adam and Eve and family. So they have kids. 2 boys to be exact, per the story. Eventually, one runs off (more like, is ran off) and starts having kids. Wait. Having kids? Having kids with who? Another child of Adam and Eve? But, wait. It isn't said in the story that Adam and Eve had other kids other than their boys. So ... there's a problem with the story here. How do we solve it? Do we say that Adam and Eve had kids other than their boys (even though, per the story, this would not be the case)? But, then, what makes these boys any more important and why had all their other kids run off before hand? OR could it be that perhaps Adam and Eve are representative of something but are not, in themselves, the whole story - just the most important part(s) of some larger story mashed together in a synoptic story?

The point is, once you start explaining the story to be something other than what is literally written on the page, any number of good interpretations become valid - and this rule applies to the whole story, not just bits and pieces. However, there has to be something in the story itself that remains in those interpretations. In the case of Adam and Eve, it's that mankind screwed up in the beginning, and we've been paying for it ever since because of the sins of our fathers. Adam and Eve establish the moral and spiritual setting of the rest of the salvation story.

Now, is it important that Adam and Eve were the first? Thematically, yes. Literally ... well ... Cain's wife had to come from somewhere, and it would seem (since Adam and Eve's progeny are of some significance) that they were not from Adam and Eve. So ... I'm gonna have to so say no on the question of literal-ness. And if I'm going to say no there, then I'm going to have to say no about the literalness of Genesis 1 and 2 - but that's not to say that the themes of the story are not important.

Haven't we already had this conversation before somewhere?

[Dr. Eric]

It's about time I was recognized as the Biblical Scholar of the Year!!!

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

But as I pointed out: it is the last 2 popes who have higher critical views of Genesis. The curent pope denies that Paul wrote the pastorals and says there are two Isaiahs, etc. Is it possible that these men are wrong?

[Dr. Eric]

It can be possible that they are wrong. The pope is protected from teaching error in Faith and Morals ONLY when he uses phrases like We define... We teach... It is binding...

The Church and the Pope very rarely get involved in daily biblical exegesis. And in defining something, the parameters are very narrow and limited. Don't expect that everything that comes from Rome is the official teaching. Look to the Councils and Ex Cathedra statements.

[Tim J.]

"The curent pope denies that Paul wrote the pastorals"

I really doubt that.

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

See Called to Communion at page 67. He says that Acts and the Pastorals belong "the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . ." Pretty clearly a post-apostolic date for Luke and/or the Pastorals.

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

See Called to Communion at page 67. He says that Acts and the Pastorals belong "the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . ." Pretty clearly a post-apostolic date for Luke and/or the Pastorals.

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

He is even more explicit in Principles of Catholic Theology at p. 101:

"they [liberals] regard with suspicion everything that comes after Paul -- especially, then the writings of St. Luke and a fortiori the pastoral epistles."

You can view these pages on Amazon.

[Jordan Potter]

"It isn't said in the story that Adam and Eve had other kids other than their boys."

Oh really? Then how come it says in Gen. 5:4 that Adam "had sons AND DAUGHTERS"? Just because birth of the daughters isn't mentioned in Gen. 4 doesn't mean the daughters weren't born.

As for Pope Benedict's obviously non-ex-cathedra personal opinionabout St. Paul's pastoral epistles, yes, he does seem to doubt that St. Paul wrote them. However, that's his personal opinion and many Christians disagree with him, including pretty much all Christians prior to the 1800s and 1900s.

[Inocencio]

Jeb Protestant,

May I ask what dates you infer when, then Cardinal Ratzinger, writes "the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . .".

What dates do you give to the pastoral epistles of the New Testament?

What authority do you accept that gives those dates?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[Jeb Protestant]

Inocencio,

I date the NT prior to 70AD.

If all we had to go on was Ratzinger's statement in Called to Communion, it would be sufficiently ambigous. But given the other statement and his general opposition to conservative dating/authorship (e.g., his statements on Genesis, Daniel and Isaiah) I think we can safely say he doesn't accept Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He most likely died toward the end of the reign of Nero. That means, obviously, that they were written sometime prior to June 68AD (or 68 CE as Catholics often call it today).

[Esau]

The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Jeb,
By your statement here, clearly, you do not know the Catholic Church's position on the Pauline corpus. Furthermore, you need to go back and study how the bible came to be in the first place. Or didn't you know the Catholic Church was responsible for putting together the books of the bible in the first place?

...or 68 CE as Catholics often call it today

C.E. is an invention of the secular folks, not Catholics, for goodness sake. A.D. was, in fact, what Catholics have always used since -- you can tell by the very writings of the Early Church Fathers, which can attest not only to this but to the very Catholicity of the Early Church itself!

How many more strawmen are you going to throw at our way?

[Jeb Protestant]

Esau,

This post was started by Tim who said Protestants were, in effect, putting themselves in place of the church as authoratative interpreters of the Bible.

But as I have shown, Benedict has placed himself in opposition to the Catholic church (up to say c. 1950) by claiming Paul didn't write the Pastorals. (Even if it is just his opinion, he held it and taught it while heading the Congregation for the Faith.)

So why aren't Catholics calling on Benedict to stop engaging in private interpretation of the Bible?

Catholics can't have it both ways.

[Brother Cadfael]

Jeb,

The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

With all due respect, you're begging the question. How do you know this to be true?

[Jeb Protestant]

BC,

We know that Jesus lived, that He rose from the dead, the He fulfilled OT scripture and that he said that He would lead His followers into truth. Paul was a follower who taught and wrote authoratatively. The Pastorals are said to be written by him and that is the testimony of the early Christian writers. So that's good enough for me. You may claim that it is question begging and circular, but as van Til said, all reasoning is circular. You've got to jump in and start somewhere.

But I would ask you, when did the the Catholic Church ever teach what its leaders teach today: the Pastorals are not from Paul, but they are inspired nonetheless.?

[Esau]

Esau,

This post was started by Tim who said Protestants were, in effect, putting themselves in place of the church as authoratative interpreters of the Bible.

But as I have shown, Benedict has placed himself in opposition to the Catholic church (up to say c. 1950) by claiming Paul didn't write the Pastorals. (Even if it is just his opinion, he held it and taught it while heading the Congregation for the Faith.)

So why aren't Catholics calling on Benedict to stop engaging in private interpretation of the Bible?

Catholics can't have it both ways.

JEB:

I appreciate your honesty and a certain fairness in your post, though. This is the kind of dialogue I appreciate from my Protestant brethren where there is a 2-way communication (in spite of the difference of opinion) that, in fact, seems to exist unlike with some other Protestant folks who, in spite of all the evidence, ignores the other side.

I've got to admit, at the very least, you have acknowledged some level of understanding of the Catholic Church as it concerns the Canon of Scripture.

I respect that.

I think what you might want to do is read up on the works of Cardinal Ratzinger through the Pontifical Council as it regards Scripture.

I don't have the particular work that I have in mind with me on the computer I'm currently using.

The particular one I know of is the one where Cardinal Ratzinger actually also treats the subject of the historical Jesus as well.

I will find out when I come back from Christmas break.

At any rate, God bless you, Jeb and have a great Christms, brutha!

[Dr. Eric]

Jeb,

When were the above books written, before or after Benedict's ascension to the Papacy?

[Jeb Protestant]

Eric,

Before, but I believe that Called to Communion was written when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

[Brother Cadfael]

Jeb,

The Pastorals are said to be written by him and that is the testimony of the early Christian writers. So that's good enough for me. You may claim that it is question begging and circular, but as van Til said, all reasoning is circular. You've got to jump in and start somewhere.

You say that you want to start with the testimony of the early Christians. OK. I think that is a good place to start. By the way, do you agree that you're relying on Tradition?

But the real question is how do you accept what they say about Paul's authorship of the pastoral letters, while at the same time rejecting what the earliest Christians say about Rome and the papacy? Do you accept or reject what the earliest Church fathers have to say about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

What standard do you use to judge?

[Jeb Protestant]

BC,

In relying on historical evidence, I'm relying on "tradition." For example, part of the reason I believe Jesus lived is that I accept Jewish tradition on this matter (Josephus, etc.). Obviously in so doing I am not bound to believe everything they believed about him.

I am not, however, relying on "Tradition." Church Tradition on the matters you reference (and I don't completely agree with your interpretation of these issues) is a different question.

[TCN]

If you are all too young to remember that Nilsson/Schmilsson was a fantastic album (NOT CD) from the 1970's then you aren't old enough to have studied enough of the Bible yet to pontificate here.

The Catholic Church gave everyone the Bible, the protestants came along and gutted it, and now the protestants think they know more about it than the Church. Try again. We have the years of experience behind us (about 1,500 more years than the protestants), and we have the early Church Fathers, who knew those who knew Jesus. That pretty much speaks for the Church as the final authority.

Of course, you are free to believe what you like, but first, get a copy of Nilsson/Schmilsson, and listen to it with old-fashioned headphones with the real pad seals around your ears, and then lighten up and learn to listen to the voice of experience, your Church.

Peace of Christ,

TCN

[Brother Cadfael]

Jeb,

I will accept that you are relying on "tradition" and not "Tradition." (Although such a distinction is potentially meaningless without some level of precision and a common understanding). In that regard, it appears that you are using some notion of "historical evidence" in your understanding of "tradition."

As you point out, you will not believe everthing that Jewish history says about the person Jesus, but the fact that Jewish history says anything at all about him is strong evidence that he did, in fact, exist. In legal terms, this would be roughly analagous to a "statement against interest," which is deemed inherently more reliable and trustworthy as evidence than a self-serving statement.

My question is this: When evaluating historical evidence, or tradition as you call it, what standard do you use to judge what to accept and not to accept?

Recognizing the potential difficulty of addressing that question in the abstract, apply it to the canon of Scripture. It would seem to me that a late first century Jewish determination of what is in the Jewish Scriptures (Christian Old Testament) does not have the same indicia of reliability as the Jewish history acknowledging the existence of Jesus. They have, by that point in time, a different agenda and a different world view than late first century Christians. A determination by them at that point in time as to what should be included in their canon does not necessarily coincide with what a first century Christian would regard as canonical. There is certainly evidence that Christ and the authors of the New Testament regarded books outside the as-yet-to-be-determined Jewish canon as scriptural.

So again, what measure do you use when evaluating the historical evidence to determine what is or is not in the canon of Sacred Scripture?

[erick]

Bro. Cadfael-
In your estimation, what would you say was the measure a say- jew 50 to 60 years prior to the birth of Christ would employ to determine what was or was not a part of the O.T cannon?

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

You know, gentlemen, in your never-ending desire to dump on evangelical Protestants, you reveal your own spiritual and intellectual laziness.

You dismiss any attempt by individual Christians to read and study Scripture for themselves as essentially the chance to incubate new Luthers. Instead, you defer all intellectual endeavors to a coterie of self-appointed ecclesiastics whose understanding of Scripture is, at best, tenuous.

Exhibit A: Pope JPII's single-handed attempt to dismiss centuries of teaching concerning capital punishment for murder in favor of his own revisionist, abolitionist, immoral stance.

Exhibit B: The confusion of "vengeance" with the application of legitimate due process concerning capital punishment.

Exhibit C: The failure to distinguish the application of due process with vigilante mob action concerning capital punishment.

Exhibit D: An over-reliance on the CCC and the Lectionary as sources, neither of which are divinely inspired in, of and by themselves.

Exhibit E: The refusal to see Islam as anything but a fellow "monotheistic" religion (when a detailed study of Scripture would show that Allah and Yahweh are not the same).

Exhibit F: The failure to understand the fact that the Mosaic Law is a multi-faceted entity that reflects God's moral mind and fundamental ethical demands for humanity -- a fact that St. Paul does not deny even in his letter to the Romans.

Exhibit G: The universally pathetic homiletics and catechesis within Catholicism.

What you refuse to see is that any and all Christians have the obligation to make faith their own. Doing so necessarily involves studying Scripture for oneself, asking questions and going beyond the cliches that permeate the world of institutionalized (and bastardized) Christianity across the board -- cliches that the instutionalized church promotes instead of a true understanding of faith.

[Inocencio]

Joseph D'Hippolito,

What you refuse to see is that the Church's authority comes from God and not you.

Christ Himself institutionalized Christianity. Your main complaint is that He did not give you the authority you desire.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[Brother Cadfael]

Joseph,

I was going to respond, but your strawman was so weak it had dissipated in the wind by the time I got to the combox.

Erick,

I imagine he would have deferred to the Jewish authorities on such matters.

[erick]

Inocencio-
Isn't your argument rather circular, being that the only way you "know" that the Church's authority comes from God----is that your Church tells you so?.

[Mary]

You dismiss any attempt by individual Christians to read and study Scripture for themselves as essentially the chance to incubate new Luthers.

"No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."

Guess where I got that?

(Note that prophecy means inspired speech -- and all Scripture is inspired.)

[erick]

Mary-
--" and all scripture is inspired"-
How do you know?.

[Brother Cadfael]

Erick,

Inocencio-
Isn't your argument rather circular, being that the only way you "know" that the Church's authority comes from God----is that your Church tells you so?.

It might be, if that's all there was. But you are ignoring the fact that two other authoritative sources, Scripture and Tradition, bear witness to the authority of the Church. If you accept any one of the three as true, it will lead you to the truth of the Church's authority.

It is "circular" in the sense that if you reject all three, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, there is no "evidence" of the point. But in this case, where we can all agree on at least one of the three, it is not circular, but reinforced by the witness of the other two authoritative sources.

[erick]

Bro. Cadfael-
I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church--again because Rome says so.
Is this still circular in nature?.

[StubbleSpark]

"How do you know?"

The Church taught us so.

The inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Trinity, Baptism, these are things that can be proven by Scripture but are not explicitly stated therein.

Without the Church Christ established to lead His followers, these teachings would not have been infallibly defined, protected from error, and transmitted through the centuries within and by Institutional Christianity.

Protestants who do not understand how much they owe the Catholic Church for all they love and hold dear about their own faith (save the relativism and disobedience) remind me of Liberals who think freedom is free (it comes without sacrifice and struggle).

Protestants, for all their evangelical zeal, never stand their ground. How is breaking off an ossified mega-church to start your own "pure and simple" new denomination any different than cutting and running?

A Protestant may feel all high and mighty when he gets in a Catholic's face and waves pamphlets like "Mary's Command" but what about his own church? If the pastor suddenly starts preaching heterodoxy, will the Protestant stay and fight for truth? Will he, in the interest of defending his fellow believers from the incursion of evil within the ranks of his church (the one correct denomination there was)?

No matter what he thinks he is going to do, unless he is convinced by the pastor that he is wrong, he ends up leaving to join another denomination or to start another denomination.

Divided, the only thing that awaits Protestantism is to be conquered.

And you can't get more divided than a white Methodist church a block down the road from a black Methodist church.

Segregation by preference leads to segregation by culture and segregation by country, segregation by region, by state, by race, by political party, by class, by age, even by family name.

"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through THEIR WORD, so that they may all be ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be like us, THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU SENT ME." -- Jesus

It is disingenuous in the extreme that the same people who thanklessly rob the treasury of faith to start their own denominations also mock the very institution that makes their life in faith possible.

There is not a Protestant on this earth who does not need to fall on his knees and thank God for Holy Mother Church.

[Brother Cadfael]

Erick,

I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church--again because Rome says so.

No, because Scripture and Tradition say so.

Look at what Scripture says about the Church.

Look at what Tradition says about the Church.

They both bear witness to the teaching authority of the Church.

Is this still circular in nature?

If you refuse to look at what Scripture and Tradition say, and only look at what the Magisterium says about the Church, it would be circular. But that's not how we approach the matter.

[StubbleSpark]

"I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church--again because Rome says so.
Is this still circular in nature?"

Circular to your what, erick?

How is "What is right I believe, What I believe is right because I say so." Any LESS circular than what you accuse Institutionalized Christianity of?

[Inocencio]

erick,

Since we obviously disagree is there, in your understanding, an authority that we as followers of Christ must obey?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[erick]

StubbleSpark-
"The Church taught us so".
Precisely my point !.
How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?.

[Inocencio]

erick,

How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?

How about answering our questions?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

[Dr. Eric]

Erick,

How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting your own limited knowledge dictate your theology?

All of us combined don't measure up to a St. Basil the Great, a St. Ignatius of Antioch (have you read what he wrote yet, he was martyred in AD 110?) a St. Leo the Great, a St. John Chrysostom, etc...

What makes you think that you have studied the Scriptures more than these guys? They had access to better manuscripts than you have. In fact some of them don't exist any more? You should thank these guys for being some of the most premier theologians ever!

[Brother Cadfael]

Erick,

I'm sure there's nothing new here for you, but just in case, here are some of the high points (not proof texts) from Scripture and Tradition bearing witness to the authority of the Church:

Scripture:

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tm 3:15). Jesus Christ built this Church upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

Tradition (lived and handed on by the lives of those who lived according to its teachings, according to the example of Christ and the Apostles. See 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15):

"Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).

"Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same ...And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world...For the Church preaches the truth everywhere..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V 20, 1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession of the succession, and assemble themselves...But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, shall recieve from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 26:2 (inter A.D. 180/199).

"The Church's preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition." Origen, First Principles 1,2 (c. A.D. 230).

"But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian." Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).

[Brother Cadfael]

How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?.

Because Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition confirm that that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot err when definitively teaching on matters of faith and morals. Not because the Church says so, but because the Bible and Tradition say that the Church says so. There's a difference.

[erick]

Inocencio-
I will answer your question, I apologize, I was trying to deal with one other person.
Mr. Inocencio, I believe that "sola scriptura" is the best of both our views.
"Sola ecclesia" reverts to circular reasoning-(I'm sure you would think the same of my view).
In trying to understand Rome's view of their apologetics, I have found the arguments quite good and scholarly.
However I have also found that when applying these same arguments to YOUR theology, it cannot withstand it.
I am fallible, but The Word is not!.
The Word is "Theopneustos"- Tradition is not!

[Tim J.]

"I am fallible, but The Word is not!."

Then your understanding of the Word could be completely wrong.

[Brother Cadfael]

Erick,

"Sola ecclesia" reverts to circular reasoning.

Are you claiming that someone here is resorting to "Sola ecclesia"? (If you claim that I am, please show me what I have said that has led to that misimpression.)

Do you at least agree that you need some authority outside of Scripture for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? (Scripture does not tell you what's in Scripture, and it does not tell you that only Scripture is authoritative.)

[erick]

Bro. Cadfael-
There is no difference!.
Rome dictates not only the extent of Scripture but its meaning as well!- the same is the case with Tradition!- so again, you are not saying much!, Bro. Cadfael!.

[Tim J.]

The testimony of history, tradition, the constant teaching of the Church and Scripture constitute not a circle, but what Scott Hahn called a "hermeneutical spiral".

All reasoning assumes that you start *somewhere*, holding *some* premises.

Once again, C.S. Lewis -

"Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada... A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life."

[Brother Cadfael]

Erick,

There is no difference!.
Rome dictates not only the extent of Scripture but its meaning as well!- the same is the case with Tradition!- so again, you are not saying much!, Bro. Cadfael!.

Forgive my incompetence in explaining this. One does not need Rome's interpretation of Scripture to see that Scripture provides evidence of the Church's authority. Similarly, one does not need Rome's interpretation of Tradtition to see that Tradition provides evidence of the Church's authority. I am failing to see how you regard them as the "same thing."

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Christ Himself institutionalized Christianity. Your main complaint is that He did not give you the authority you desire.

Innocencio, I suggest you read Revelation 2-3. Those chapters list several churches, most of which were in various states of decline, if not outright apostacy.

Besides, Innocencio, the same Christ who "institutionalized" Christianity is the same Christ who rhetorically asked, "When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?"

The same Christ who tried to defuse disobedience to the Pharisees and Saducees is the same Christ who challenged those vary same authorities.

As those episodes, which are scattered throughout the Gospels, illustrate, religious authorities who have received their commission from God can become radically and fundamentally corrupt.

StubbleSpark, you are quite right about the chaos that permeates much of Protestantism. However, you ignore the opposite side of that coin: the existance in Catholicism of a centralized, rigid governing bureaucracy that places its own self-service, self-survival and desire for influence and secular prestige over the interests and mandates of God. To deny this is to deny at least five centuries of European history. Moreover, if the clerical sex-abuse crisis didn't make that bureaucracy's fundamentally self-serving nature clear, then you are blind beyond hope.

You gentlemen revel in your allegiance to that bureaucracy. Do you seriously believe that it can save anybody from sin?

[erick]

Bro. Cadfael-
Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I thought that according to your theology, only Rome was the infallible interpreter of Scripture!.
I thought only Rome could define Sacred Tradition?--- is that right?. If the answer is yes, then everything goes back to Rome!.
If the answer is no, then I apologize!.

[bill912]

"You gentlemen revel in your allegiance to that bureaucracy." That's a lie, and you know it. Their loyalty and obedience is to Christ and His Church.

[erick]

Tim J-
That's right!- I could be wrong!.
Such is the nature of being fallible!--.
Do you think free will is a bad thing only because there is a chance we could choose the wrong way?.
God is not willing that any should perish...yet some do perish!.
The question is ...are YOU fallible?.

[Dr. Eric]

Tradition is also God-Breathed. It just wasn't written down like Scripture. Scripture is Holy Tradition that happened to be written down, Holy Tradition that wasn't written down is now known as Tradition. The Church is the pillar and bullwark of Truth. With out those three you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Very well, bill912, let me pose this: How many of those gentlemen castigated Rod Dreher for his legitimate criticisms of the Catholic episcopocracy's abyssmal failure to protect the innocent during the clerical sex-abuse crisis? How many Catholics eviserated Dreher essentially for asking the question in his Wall Street Journal commentary that no other Catholic dared ask: Why does Pope John Paul II spend so much time on Iraq and so little on a crisis that challenges the Church's fundamental moral credibility?

I'll tell you why: A cult of personality has developed around the late pope that wishes to immunize him from all legitimate criticism. That is allegiance to the Church as insitution, not to Christ.

I can give you the name of one man who has led the way in bashing Dreher: Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. If a man holding such a position can engage in slanderous behavior, what can other supposedly less-educated "orthodox" Catholics do?

Loyalty to Christ and His Church, bill912, means defending the innocent. That's what God wants. Loyalty to Christ and His Church, bill912, means supporting the principles of justice enunciated in Scripture. That's what the Church is failing to do with its revisionist attitude toward capital punishment -- and many lay Catholics who claim to be loyal and obedient to Christ are allowing Church officals to hoodwink them on this issue.

You know what I'm saying is the truth, bill912.

[Brother Cadfael]

Erick,

Bro. Cadfael-
Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I thought that according to your theology, only Rome was the infallible interpreter of Scripture!.

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. When the Magisterium posits a definitive interpretation of Scripture, it is infallible. Further, only the Magisterium has that authority. You are correct in those assertions, but they have no application to what we're talking about.

The Magisterium has, in fact, infallibly defined very few passages of Scripture. And I am relying on no such infallible definitions or interpretations here.

What I am saying is that when you consider Sacred Scripture apart from anything the Church has to say about it, without resorting to any infallible interpretations, you find substantial evidence of the authority provided to the Church.

Same analysis for Tradition.

The fact that Rome can infallibly interpret Scripture and Tradition does not mean that my arguments are based on any such infallible interpretations. The support of Scripture and Tradition for the authority of the Chuch can be seen quite plainly without the Magisterium's input.

I agree with you to this point. If the Magisterium's infallible interpretation were required to support the Magisterium's infallibility, the logic would be hopelessly circular. But the conclusion you reach is based on a false premise.

[erick]

Dr. Eric-
"Tradition is also God-Breathed".
Says who?.- are You your own authority for this statement?.

[erick]

Bro. Cadfael-
We disagree!.

[Dr. Eric]

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." -2 Thessalonians 2:14

If God wanted him to write this, then what St. Paul said is true. Therefore we have to hold onto the Oral Traditions that St. Paul handed down to us.

I never say anything on my own authority.

[Brother Cadfael]

Joseph,

A cult of personality has developed around the late pope that wishes to immunize him from all legitimate criticism.

In order to be legitimate, criticism should be based on facts. To suggest that the late Holy Father did not anguish over the abuse of children is nonsensical. It is certainly not factual.

There is certain arrogance and pride that assumes one knows all of the relevant facts regarding a situation based on what the media provides. Who are you (or who is Rod) to suggest that you know what Pope John Paul II was doing behind the scenes?

I know that Rod anguished over this matter, and I know that he is sincere in his beliefs. But much of his criticism reminds me of the after-the-fact criticisms of Pope Pius XII and how he did "nothing" to stop the Holocaust.

It is our Christian duty (one I will be the first to admit I do not always remember) to assume the good motives of another. That is certainly no less true with the Holy Father, where it is a virtual lock that you (and Rod) have only a fraction of the relevant information.

I am not familiar with what you have termed slanderous remarks by Kevin Miller. If he has in fact slandered Rod, he should be held to account for it. But if he has simply pointed out the error of Rod's ways -- which is an objective fact -- that is not slander.

You know what I'm saying is the truth, bill912.

I can't speak for bill912, but I see very little truth in your post Joseph.