Just for Catholics is a website where Dr. Mizzi seeks to convince Catholics to leave the Catholic Church. I am reviewing his teachings and comparing them to the Word of God in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. We are currently on this article. His words in blue.
The Authority of the Bible
Question: The Church gives authority to the Bible. Several councils, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage to name two, gave testimony to the veracity of Scripture.
In the question above, Dr. Mizzi is portraying himself as a Catholic who is supposed to be asking a question. The first problem is, there is no question in that statement.
The second problem is, that is not a Catholic statement. The Catholic Church says that the Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, it is God who gives the Bible its authority:
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:
- You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.
So, keep in mind that Dr. Mizzi made a statement which is not representative of Catholic Teaching, portrayed it as a question and then set out to disprove his own make believe statement.
Answer: I don’t see how the church ‘gives authority’ to the Bible by witnessing to its veracity.
Nor does the Catholic Church:
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
The Bible is authoritative because it is the inspired Word of God, whatever anyone says about it.
That is Catholic Teaching:
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
I do not impart beauty to the Mona Lisa by my admiration and praise. Nor do I add value to the crown jewels by recognizing their worth. In the same way, we do not give authority to the books of the Bible by recognizing them as the Word of God.
Hm? Actually, by recognizing them as the Word of God, you recognize their authority. And that is what the Church does for the Scriptures. She is the first to recognize which books were authentically inspired by God. In so doing, She recognized their authority.
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
It is true that during the first centuries, Christians endeavoured to identify the canon of the New Testament (i.e. the books that make up the Holy Bible).
Which Christians? There is only one possibility. Catholic Christians. There were no others.
Previously, God enabled the Jews to recognize the canonical books of the Old Testament. God, who inspired the Scriptures, made sure that His people would possess and acknowledge His Book. Though Christians and their leaders are fallible and liable to make mistakes, yet God's providence guaranteed that their decisions were correct.
Very good. Dr. Mizzi just acknowledged the gift of infallibility. He said, "...God's providence guaranteed that their decisions were correct."
Christ's people recognize the Word of their Master. 'The sheep hear his voice…a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers…and they shall hear my voice…My sheep hear my voice' (John 10).
That is true. Christ's people make up the Catholic Church.
I wonder what’s the point of your bold assertion that the church gives authority to the Bible.
Ah yes. Well, that's your bold assertion Dr. Mizzi. It is true that St. Augustine said that if it were not for the Catholic Church, he would not believe the Gospels. But that just means that the Catholic Church taught him the authority of the Scriptures.
Is it perhaps to show that the Roman Catholic Church has authority over the Bible...?
No. The Catholic Church teaches:
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
or that the Bible was given by the Catholic Church?
Well, yeah. That's true. Catholics were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the preach the teachings of Christ and to write the New Testament.
Roman Catholic apologists often make the above claims, but it could be shown that both are false.
No they don't. They make only one. It is Protestants who always accuse the Catholic Church of claiming to have authority over the Scriptures. But the Catholic Church teaches it is the Servant of the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.
1. The Roman Catholic Church does not have authority over the Bible.
That is Catholic Teaching. See CCC#86 above.
Since the Bible is the Word of God (whether we believe it or not), how can mere men give authority to the Word of their Creator and Lord?
Exactly!
Even the Roman Catholic Church does not assume this proud position in its official writings. 'Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86).
Then why did you pretend that She does?
Can a servant give authority to his master? Of course not! Neither can the church give authority to the Word of her Lord.
Thank you. You have just admitted your initial "question" was a sham. It is you Dr. Mizzi, who made the statement and pretended it was a question.
2. The Bible was not given by the Catholic Church.
Yes, it was.
There is a technical difference between the idea of "Holy Bible" and "Sacred Scripture".
The Holy Bible was put together by the Catholic Church. It is a compilation of the 46 books of Old Testament Scripture and the 27 books of the New Testament Scripture.
Before the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, there were hundreds of New and Old Testament books which were passed off as Scripture by various groups. Tow examples will suffice. You won't find "The book of Enoch" in the Old
Testament nor the "Epistle of Barnabus" in the New.
The Bible is inspired by God: is not given by the church, but to the church.
The Bible is inspired by God. It is given by the Church (the Magisterium) to the Church (the People of God).
Catholic apologists are so eager to elevate the authority of their church, that they even flatly contradict the teaching of their own church. The First Vatican Council declared:
The books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.
This just shows how confused is Dr. Mizzi. He purports to be against the Teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet here, he admits that the Church Teaching is correct. But, according to him, certain Catholic Apologists contradict the Church.
Then why does he hold it against the Church? If it is true that certain Catholic Apologists are not explaining Catholic doctrine correctly, surely that is their own fault. But, as I'm reading the make believe Catholic Apologist which Dr. Mizzi is portraying. It is really Dr. Mizzi putting his words in a fictional Catholic Apologist's mouth.
The Scriptures are the rule of faith because they are the Word of God and not because they were approved by the authority of the church.
The Scriptures are A rule of faith because they are the Word of God. But Scripture ITSELF tells us to "keep the Traditions" (2 Thess 2:15). That makes the Traditions another rule of faith. And Scripture also tells us to "hear the Church" (Matt 18:17). That makes the Church another authority we must obey.
So much for the idea that the church gives authority to the Bible,
And idea which Dr. Mizzi invented and then shot down.
or that the church gave the Bible!
This is true. See my explanation above.
Having said that, I must add a very important remark. Though it is technically incorrect to say that the Church gives authority to the Bible, yet your statement certainly captures the spirit of Catholicism. With a false sense of humility, the Vatican professes that 'the magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is it's servant,' when in practice the Roman magisterium exalts itself to the highest.
Not true at all Dr. Mizzi. Look at what you are doing here. YOU, Dr. Mizzi, are exalting yourself above the Bible by daring to tell us what the Bible says.
I have read the Bible, Dr. Mizzi. And the Bible agrees with Catholic Teaching.
I have read the Bible, Dr. Mizzi. And the Bible disagrees with your teaching.
You claim that the Church does not have the authority to teach the Word of God. What gives you the authority then? If anyone teaching the Word of God is putting himself above the Bible, then you are putting yourself above the Bible because you purport to teach the Word of God.
None can challenge their teaching by appealing to the Bible,
You claim to believe the Bible but you set aside teachings in the Bible with which you disagree. For instance, the Bible says:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
The Bible doesn't say "challenge the Church" nor "dispute the Church" by appealing to the Bible. You have added that to the Word of God.
The Bible says that the Church is the House of God and the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). So why do you dare challenge the Church?! Have you no respect for the commands of Scripture!?
since they claim that only the magisterium can interpret the Scriptures correctly.
That isn't true. The Church teaches that the Magisterium is infallible and will not commit errors interpreting Scripture. That doesn't mean that you or I can't interpret Scripture correctly, most of the time. However, we are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. The Church is. Therefore, the Church is the only INFALLIBLE interpreter of the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.
Moreover, the magisterium can always fall back on 'Sacred Tradition' as the divine source of their teaching.
Jesus only passed down Tradition. And Scripture commands we hold on to it (2 Thess 2:15). Which makes me wonder why you reject it.
Since no one knows the contents of this Tradition apart from the teaching of the magisterium, they have a free hand to teach whatever they fancy.
If you don't know the contents of Tradition, simply read the Catechism.
How else can Rome justify her theological novelties,
The Catholic Church does not produce theological novelties. You and the Protestants do that.
such as auricular confession,
Auricular confession means "confession in the ear" and refers to the private confessing of sins. Lets see, back in the year 248, Origen said:
"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).
That sounds like auricular confession! Hardly a novelty in the year 2011. If we assume it began in the year Origen wrote this statement, the process has been around at least 1700 years. Protestantism, which rejects that, has been around only 500. Which is the novelty?
universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome,
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
St. Irenaeus "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
All these comments precede the year 300. Which is the novelty? Protestantism or the doctrine of Papal authority?
and the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?
Immaculate Conception:
The Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the second Eve. Where the first Eve was disobedient by sinning the second Eve (Mary) was obedient by not sinning. This is the natural conclusion to Genesis 3:15 where God says that He would put enmity between Satan and the woman (Mary). If Mary were to sin there would be no enmity or complete separation between her and Satan.
Justin Martyr
[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
The doctrine of the Assumption was one that developed over time. It was not something new but rather the logical result of what was already known (Mary’s Immaculate Conception). Since corruption in the grave was the result of sin (Genesis 2:17) it was only logical to think that someone without sin would not suffer such a fate.
Pseudo – Melito
If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: "Be it done according to your will" (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).
Timothy of Jerusalem
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian
The Lord said to his Mother, "Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens". . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).
Which is the novelty? Protestantism or the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption?
How can Rome legislate regulations such as celibacy
Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 7:8
King James Version (KJV)
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
1 Corinthians 7:31-34
King James Version (KJV)
31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
and feasts of obligation
Hebrews 10:24-30
King James Version (KJV)
24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
without Biblical warrant unless it suppresses the ultimate authority of the Word of God?
The Catholic Church does nothing without Biblical warrant. It is the Protestants who neither obey the Church, nor the Traditions, nor even the Word of God in Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for contributing.