by Kolbitar » November 24th, 2006, 5:42 pm
Hello again Ana.
You write:
::From Acts 1:1-
"...I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen..."Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." ...But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."…The Apostles alone were given a special gift of the Holy Spirit to be THE avenue through which God would speak To the ends of the earth
First, Catholics believe that the deposit of faith – everything “materially” contained in Scripture – was given to the Apostles at Pentecost. However, the ability to formally understand – that is, to penetrate and shape it’s materiality for our understanding – is found in the fullness of the Church (which contains or includes Scripture, of which Scripture is one ingredient, so to speak); a fullness composed of three essential principles: Tradition, Scripture and the Magesterium (teaching authority). Now, your point is a good one about the Apostles speaking to the ends of the earth, but most obviously this does not mean they will do so physically, in person; that is why you say “[t]hat is how we got our Bible”, for you believe the Bible is the means through which this will finally be achieved. Catholics, Anglicans, and the Orthodox (among others) believe that the Holy Spirit’s preservation of the Apostolic message which you attribute to Scripture alone belongs as well to the Church in it’s full capacity (i.e., it’s teaching authority and tradition (various forms of preservation) in addition to Scripture). This is in keeping with Christ’s recorded words, with what Scripture itself says about the Church, and with the historical facts which go in to allowing a real belief that Scripture, as we have it, is trustworthy, reliable, inspired and closed to any further additions (the Bible doesn’t define itself, it doesn’t give a table of contents, and looking to it alone violates Scripture alone since the principle is not found there – alone).
St. Paul writes to Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Teaching authority was passed from Paul to Timothy to faithful men and on to others. This visible succession allowed the contents of what-we-have-now-as-the-Bible to be carried on in a trustworthy way to begin with. So here we have the Holy Spirit “leading us into truth," preserving and developing essentials of the faith which Jesus commissioned to be passed on. All of this forms the “avenue… to the ends of the earth” of which you speak.
::That is how we got our Bible. And since the ends of the earth havn't yet recieved the message, they still alone do the speaking(NT)
The Bible is a result of Tradition, a result of the Church’s care which is visibly recognizable by the apostolic succession. If the Bible preserves the message of the Apostles, and the Church preserves the Bible, then they’re all parts of an organic whole: that’s what Catholicism teaches, and what history, as far as I can see, bears true (the defining of the Canon took centuries).
::The Bible claims that the Holy Spirit now works through the word. "the sword of the Spirit is the word of God" It does not say that the sword of the Spirit is the word of God and the Pope. The special annointing was just for the apostles.
I think you’re simply assuming the “word of God” is that written on paper which proverbially begs the question, for I believe it’s more than that. The written word is an instrument of the word of God, so we’re talking about the transmission, preservation and understanding of the word, the reality, of God, which not only Scripture does, but tradition and authority does as well. The Church in her councils, and the Pope in his capacity to speak ex cathedra, bring the sword of the spirit, the word of God, to us by clarifying and defining Scripture (the creedal definitions of the Trinity and Christ’s divine nature are the most common, readily accepted and perfect examples).
::The foundation being Jesus Christ, not the pope:
1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ."
The Catholic and Protestant will continue to talk past each other so long as there is no recognition of the difference in perspectives they have. The Catholic has a sacramental perspective; one which, in light of the Incarnation, views certain visible aspects of the Church as inseparable from Christ himself. Christ is the foundation, indeed, but in so far as Christ speaks through Peter (and his successors) Catholics believe that Peter is inseparable from Christ as foundation, and that the successors of the apostles (bishops), so long as they are in communion with Peter, are also inseparable – "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me (Luke 10:16).”
::As witnessed by and God inspired through THE apostles and prophets.
Ephesians 2:20 "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone"
If the pope is continuing on in a progression of infallability then the above verse should read: "Built of the foundation of apostles and prophets..." The "the" should be removed.
I want to understand you here, are you saying that the difference the “the” makes is that it excludes everyone else from the class of apostles and prophets? If so, then it seems that you’re assuming tools like papal infallibility are intended to do more than clarify and define the deposit of faith “once delivered” to the apostles: but they’re not. According to Catholics general revelation ended with the apostles; I think we agree on this.
::And proclaimed faithfully by the Church:
1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Note is says foundation of THE truth, it does not say: foundation of truth.
Again it seems like your opposing “the truth” to “truth” as if “truth” without the “the” means ongoing. But this fails to make an important distinction. There’s a difference, you see, between adding new truths and developing truths. You must admit this yourself, since at the time Paul wrote this (1 Timothy 3:15) to Timothy the Bible didn’t exist. Yet you believe the Bible as you have it is God’s inspired word, and that no more books will or can be added; however this, at the time Paul wrote, was not an explicit part of “the truth.” Therefore when the NAB renders it without the “the”, it is accurately doing so for the development of truth IS ongoing, while the other translations are also accurate to add the “the” in so far as they have in mind the exclusion of additional truths.
::Foundations can only be laid once. They must be in place before it can by built upon. If the Pope or Church claim to be part of an ongoing project to build the foundation…
To build the foundation? No, I think it’s accurate to say, from the Catholic point of view, that the Church, in it’s official capacity to define dogma through councils and papal decree, is the sacramental pillar and foundation of developing truth. It may be that part of that developing truth offers a clearer understanding of the foundation itself (the doctrine of infallibility, for instance), but the point of our relationship with Christ is to know him (the foundation) more and more intimately and clearly. And isn’t that the essential purpose of truth in the first place?
Sincerely,
Jesse
The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. --Chesterton
Sober Inebriation:
http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/