Wondering:

I wasn't questioning the central role you give the Eucharist. It's just that to me, your post sounded a bit like it was downplaying the role of Holy Scripture. Also, I don't entirely agree with your statements about that we came to have the Bible. It is not true, in my opinion, that earliest Church did not have the Bible. They had the Old Testament, which was recognized as Holy Scripture by the Church from the very beginning. So your statements about how the Church came to have the Bible really apply only to the New Testament, IMO.

Ryan

Ryan,

We agree.

I was downplaying the centrality of the Bible because Jesus told us that it isn't the sole rule of faith, as so many Protestants are taught today. I was also stressing the importance of the Eucharist in our relationship with Christ because it is something no Protestants have today.

The early Christians had many writings that they read from during their weekly meetings. Most of them were Christian letters and accounts, but they did have the Torah as well. The existence of the Church was not based on their obtaining those accounts, and they did not have the totality of them to pull from. We agree that we are speaking of the New Testament and Christian writings. Still, before they were written and compiled, the Church existed. What is it that defines the Church then? The Church of Christ teaches that it is a spiritual unity and that all later teachings are extraneous. They base this belief on the Bible. I was pointing out that this is a flawed logic because the Bible was one of those later compilations that came from the councils and decisions of the Church. Many Protestants believe the Catholic Church came into existence with Constantine, but this isn't true. I was stressing to Lucy that the Catholic Church came into existence on Pentecost and has maintained that faith since that time.

I don't think this is the best venue for us to discuss nuances. Let's let Lucy offer her thoughts and questions first and then we can work together to clarify any questions like that to her.

Ryan and Wondering,

The Word of God has primacy within the Church in its expression as Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition (like a two-edged sword). Sacred Scripture, however, is alone inspired by God, which means that it has God as its primary author. It is the soul of the Church's theology. Even the worship of the liturgy is informed by Sacred Scripture. the issue is - whose interpretation? Protestants make each pastor - each individual, really - a magisterium of one. They also rely on a "tradition" of interpretation, but do not acknowledge that they are reading within the context of a body of traditions, teachings and assumptions. But individual interpretation and the principle of Sola Scriptura directly contradict Sacred Scripture itself!

Just look at 2 Peter 1:19-21



For an interesting read, try these links:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0304-96/anarchy.html

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ30.HTM

Part of the issue is defining the nature of Sacred Scripture's sufficiency. Protestants generally ascribe a formal sufficiency to the sacred text, meaning that it is the only infallible Word of God. But, as seen from articles above, this claim cannot withstand historical and even biblical scrutiny!

Some theologians, even Catholic ones, have argued for a material sufficiency, meaning that everything we need to believe as Christians for our salvation is contained, either explicitly or implicitly, within the sacred text. This view is also problematic because it fails to take into account the importance of the Church's definitions in the conciliar tradition, for instance, such as that of Nicea against Arius. The Arians in one sense held to material sufficiency, using passages of the sacred text to argue their positions - often convincingly. Nicea had to employ the auxillary language of homoousios to define the parameters of Orthodox Christology vis-a-vis Jesus' shared nature with the Father. One of the arguments made against this definition by the Arians was the fact that the referential language of revelation was not used by the Church. The Church has chosen on numerous other occasions to define authoritatively the parameters of orthodox belief and praxis using auxillary language, such as Theotokos and transubstantiation. The fact that the referential language of the sacred text is preferred does not preclude the Church from using auxillary terms to define orthodox positions, since the Bible is not a magisterium unto itself. It is a body of writings that were assembled within the context of a worshipping and apostolic community, in continuity with ancient Israel. This points to the need, therefore, for a functioning, unified apostolic magisterium that serves the proper interpretation of the sacred text and its incorporation into all aspects of Church life.

The practical sufficiency of Sacred Scripure demonstrates that if you read the bible, you will see the need - one could also say - the fundamental assumption of the existence of both a sacred, apostolic oral tradition and a functioning apostolic magisterium which are the matrix for its interpretation and application. I would contend, and it is not just my contention, that this is the proper view of the sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.

So Catholics and Orthodox can argue for the (practical) sufficiency of Sacred Scripture, but only when properly interpreted through an ecclesial and hence, eucharistic hermeneutic.

God bless!

Gordo

Michael,

that reminds me of a Mark Twain quote,

Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno.
- "Was the World Made for Man?"

This can also be applied to emergence of 19th century Dispensational Protestantism

Factual historical events surrounding the Gospels and the Book of Acts don't support this limited view that the Nazarenes, followers of “The Way”, just met in homes and read the bible. Further does this person even have a clue as to what the cost and logistics was involved to transcribe a Torah scroll or other scripture and liturgical books? One went to the local synagogues and listened to the readings.

There had been some early followers of “The Way”, who had come from wealth and some influence, the various religious sects, including from within the inner court of King Herod, but regarding church leadership - James the Just, who headed the congregation of Jerusalem was a Nasi, Desposyni, and concentrated Nazarite. James was also recognized by many as a true high priest. In addition to the Apostles own leadership.

The problem was following the initial events of Pentecost, there wasn't enough leadership. Book of Acts records the selection of the deacons happened really early on and real quick because of this issue very issue. Paul's letters to the churches as another example of leadreship. Remember thousands had come to Christ at Pentecost, they intern took this message of the Good News back throughout the Roman empire. Next you have the examples of James and his evangelizing bring huge crowds to Christ and the Apostles about on their commissions establishing churches throughout the known world and beyond.

Are you familiar with the Jewish expulsion from Rome under Claudius? This provides a further backdrop following the events of Pentecost when the pilgrims returned from Jerusalem, and this provides a further historical detail to the later arrival of Paul and the Book of Romans.

The Holy Spirit, James, Peter, John, and the Apostles.

This was no small home bible study movement.

Jolly,
Thanks for answering. I was thinking that for that time period authoritarian rule was so much a part of the culture (rabbis, emperors,etc)that it was highly unlikely that a bunch of folks would deign to consider themselves qualified or capable of worshipping and learning about Christianity on their own. Your response corroborates my thought.