text:
Sceptile is joining the Pokken Tournament roster. The grass-type Pokemon will be coming to arcade versions of the Pokemon fighter through an update, but will also be part of the …Continue reading →
The next wave of Animal Crossing-themed amiibo figures have a date, and you'll be able to add them to your collection near the beginning of the year. The UK Animal …Continue reading →
Nintendo will be holding the final Super Smash Bros. Direct next week. At 2pm PST on Tuesday, December 15th, fans will be able to tune in and see a new …Continue reading →
Though production of Nintendo's new platform, the Nintendo NX, isn't expected to begin until the end of the first quarter of 2016, a recent Digitimes report claims that the console's component supplier is …Continue reading →
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD is coming to Wii U next year, and there's now reason to believe that it will support Wii remote and Nunchuck controls like …Continue reading →
While Star Fox Zero will be the return of several fan favorite characters, it's been confirmed that one character won't be returning in the Wii U game next year, and …Continue reading →
At the end of today's Nintendo Direct, Nintendo announced that Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy VII is joining the roster of Super Smash Bros. for 3DS and Wii U. No …Continue reading →
During today's Nintendo Direct, Nintendo confirmed that Fire Emblem Fates' three editions (Birthright, Conquest, and Revelation) will be available in one Special Edition. The #FireEmblemFates Special Edition includes all three …Continue reading →
After a delay back in September, Nintendo confirmed during its Nintendo Direct presentation that Star Fox Zero will come to Wii U on April 22nd. For more on the game, …Continue reading →
Nintendo has announced that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD will be coming to Wii U on March 4th. The remaster will also be launched alongside a Wolf Link …Continue reading →
Nintendo has announced its first Nintendo Direct since June and the untimely passing of former CEO Satoru Iwata. The direct will begin at 2 p.m. PT (5 p.m. ET) on November 12, …Continue reading →
Mewtwo is getting a new form in Pokken Tournament as a new boss for the Pokemon fighting game. Arcade versions of Pokken Tournament have been patched to include what fans …Continue reading →


text:
See our newsletters
Like us!
More social media
Follow us!
More social media
Subscribe to our RSS feeds.
Sign up for breaking news, weather alerts and more
Search GoErie.com
Search Local Businesses
Data Central
» Dollars for Docs
Search the database to see what doctors have accepted payments from pharmaceutical companies.
Today's Top Ads
Search Jobs
Job Videos

subset: commoncrawl


text:
U.S. Participants > Funded Research Participants > Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S.
The Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS) was formed in 1988 to identify and bring together the distributed human and facilities resources of the Arctic research community--to create a synergy for the Arctic in which each resource, when combined with others, can result in a strength that enables the community to rise to the many challenges facing the Arctic and the United States. ARCUS provides a mechanism for the Arctic community to complement the advisory roles of other national organizations, such as the US Arctic Research Commission (USARC), the Polar Research Board (PRB), and Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), that are concerned with the Arctic.
ARCUS is a non-profit corporation consisting of institutions organized and operated for educational, professional, or scientific purposes.
Website: http://www.arcus.org
1/1/2007 Journals by teachers Ute Kaden and Allan Miller who sailed aboard the icebreaker Oden as part of National Science Foundation research cruise. More
4/1/2005 A collection of photos, graphics, video and audio files, and PowerPoint presentations available to the general public. More
Animals & environment
Life at the poles
For students & teachers
Images, video, audio
Press releases, speeches, meetings, & more
This site features IPY activities supported by the United States government and is managed by the National Science Foundation.


text:
But it might not be who you think.
Ryan Hollins, the senior center, reportedly has had some good workouts for NBA teams and could sneak into the late first-round.
Hollins worked out in Los Angeles for some NBA teams Tuesday, and will possibly have more workouts around the country.
Jordan Farmar worked out with the Los Angeles Clippers Tuesday and, according to NBA sources, the results were mixed. Farmar worked the pick and roll very well, but reportedly struggled to penetrate and also to stop penetration, and didn't shoot particularly well. Farmar was supposed to have worked out with the Los Angeles Lakers, and did work out for Sacramento Wednesday, but we haven't heard any reports from those workouts.
Farmar will now go back east on one trip to work out for the New Jersey Nets and Indiana Pacers. An NBA source indicates that Farmar will work out for the Nets on Friday against Michigan State's 6-4 guard Shannon Brown, who is also a junior.
Arron Afflalo worked out for the Los Angeles Lakers recently, and NBA sources indicated that the workout didn't improve his stock and only further reinforced that he should return to college.
It's unknown whether Cedric Bozeman, the senior guard/wing, has worked out with an NBA team yet.


text:
About the ESPN Hot Zone
• Use the dropdowns to select sortable information about the player.
• A color will appear when there are at least five at-bats using the selected criteria.
• Click on the image to receive the averages that correspond with the data.
• The raw data will appear when there are fewer than five at-bats using the selected criteria.
With Stephen Strasburg out, the Washington Nationals have someone else solidifying the role of staff ace—right-handed pitcher Jordan Zimmermann.
Zimmermann lowered his 2013 ERA to 2.00 with another dominant outing- seven scoreless innings of two-hit ball with eight strikeouts in a win over the Minnesota Twins.
Zimmermann doesn't come with quite the hype of Strasburg (he pitched at Division III Wisconsin-Stevens Point), but he's in the midst of a terrific run of effectiveness. Let's go through some of the highlights of it.
The History
Zimmermann has found his comfort zone at Nationals Park.
He's won his last 11 decisions there, two shy of tying the franchise record for longest home winning streak (the full list is in the chart on the right).
Most Consecutive Home Wins
Nationals/Expos History
This was the third time this season that Zimmermann had a start in which he pitched at least seven innings, allowing no runs and two hits or fewer.
That's the most such starts in the majors.
In fact, that is tied for the most such starts in a season in franchise history, matching the mark of two former prominent Expos- Dennis Martinez (1991) and Pedro Martinez (1996).
Earlier this season, Zimmermann had two amazing starts in a row—a one-hit shutout of the Reds and eight scoreless innings of two-hit ball against the Braves. Only one other pitcher had consecutive scoreless appearances of eight innings and two hits or fewer allowed in Nationals/Expos history- Charlie Lea in 1982.
In the last two seasons, Zimmermann is 21-11 with a 2.63 ERA, the latter ranking third best in the majors over that span, trailing Kris Medlen (2.04) and Clayton Kershaw (2.36). His 35 quality starts are tied for the most with Kershaw and R.A. Dickey.
How he wins
Zimmermann succeeds with a fastball that averages about 94 miles-per-hour. He's not a high-strikeout pitcher (he's only netting 5.8 per 9 innings this season), but he is a strike-thrower at the highest level. He ranks third in the majors in innings per start, his average one this season last 7 1/3.
Highest Avg Fastball Velocity
NL Starting Pitchers (2013)
The one statistical indicator that Zimmermann's numbers may be a little bit overachieving would be his batting average on balls in play, which is .230 this season (third-lowest in the majors).
But that's balanced by his ability to limit hard contact.
Major-league hitters typically hit over .700 on line drives, but Zimmermann has minimized the amount of hard contact against him. By our video review, his 16 percent line-drive rate this season ranks eighth-lowest among ERA-title qualifying pitchers.
Opponents have not been able to power up against Zimmermann's fastball save for a couple of games this season. He's held opponents to a .207 batting average and .542 OPS with the pitch, the latter ranking best in the majors.
Zimmermann's fastball is one that hitters often get tempted into swinging at, only to regret it later on. He's gotten hitters to chase on nearly one-third of pitches out of the strike zone, a rate within striking distance of Matt Harvey's dominant high heater, which has a 35 percent chase rate.
Sunday it was that pitch that was the winning pitch, netting him 15 outs and yielding only three baserunners.
Looking ahead
Tuesday starts a nine-game road trip for the Nationals, with Zimmermann likely to make his next start in Cleveland.
Zimmermann has a 3.09 ERA on the road this season. In 2012, Zimmermann was a dominant road pitcher, his 2.36 road ERA considerably better than his 3.54 home ERA.
This would be Zimmermann's first start against the Indians. He's been unfazed against AL teams in his career, posting a 2.53 ERA in 14 starts against them.


text: Cheryl Burke -- "Dancing" Tool? 1 3/18/2008 6:14 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF "Dancing with the Stars" is back on -- and that means Cheryl Burke is back at Hyde. Curious how she seems to go out a heck of a lot more when she's got a show to promote, isn't it? See Also "DWTS" Training Technique: A Night on the Town


text:
Tim Holtz Adirondack Alcohol Ink
Product Actions
Additional Information
- .5 oz bottles
- Acid-free, fast-drying
Acid-free, fast-drying transparent dye inks specially formulated to create a colorful, polished stone effect. Use on glossy paper, dominoes, metal, shrink plastic, glass, and other slick surfaces. The rich, realistic earthtones are permanent and fade resistant. Not Available to Ship to Canada
- No Express Shipping: Sorry, Not Available for Express Shipping.
- Handling Code:
Items shipping from our warehouse ship within 3 business days (Mon-Fri) for standard shipping. If an order is placed on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, it will ship out within 3 business days the following week. Items shipping direct from the manufacturer will take additional processing time and ship separate from the remainder of your order. See our Full Shipping Policy >
|In-Home Arrival Estimate
|6-9 Business Days
|3 Business Days
|Express Plus
|2 Business Days
For pricing information, please see our shipping table, shipping prices are based on order total.
If you aren't 100% satisfied with your order, you can return it to us for a refund within 90 days of delivery. To make returning an item easy, we offer a return shipping label with most shipping packages or you may ship the package back on your own. If you use our shipping label, you will receive a refund back to your original payment method, minus a $5 shipping fee. See Full Return Policy >
Personalized products can not be returned. Every order is custom printed for the person who ordered it and therefore can not be resold. If you received product that was flawed or damaged, we will be happy to work with you on a case by case basis. Please call 888.739.4120, Mon.-Sat. 9am-7pm EST, to determine return eligibility & process.


text:
How much does Pedro Almodóvar love Penélope Cruz? To infinity and beyond in Broken Embraces, a tribute to the actress' beauty and brio. The film exists for Almodóvar and his fans to worship at the shrine of Santa Cruz, cast here as a secretary who climbs the social ladder to become an industrialist's mistress and, ultimately, a director's muse.
A melodrama painted in the saffron-and-turmeric hues of a Bollywood musical, Broken Embraces is the Spanish filmmaker's homage to Hitchcock's Vertigo, that moody account of obsessional love and double lives.


text:
July 11, 2014 - Matthew Kelly & Catholic Youth / Spirituality of Church Architecture
How do you get young people excited about the faith? This week on Register Radio, Dan Burke talks with author and speaker Matthew Kelly about his work to ignite the faith of Catholic youth. Later in the show Dan and architect William Heyer discuss how architecture can draw Church communities heavenward. » READ MORE
July 4, 2014 - Supreme Court & Hobby Lobby / EWTN's Michael Warsaw
Are your religious liberties at work complete guaranteed? On this special Fourth of July edition of Register Radio, Jeanette De Melo talks with the Becket Fund's Montserrat Alvarado about the...READ MORE
June 27, 2014 - EWTN's HHS Lawsuit / Buffer Zone at Abortion Facilities
Is it game over for EWTN? US District Judge Callie Granade of Mobile ruled against EWTN, dismissing its challenge to the HHS contraception mandate. As it is, EWTN will have to pay the government $35,000 a day in hefty fees! Chairman & CEO Michael Warsaw is ready to roll out his new playbook. This week on Register Radio, Jeanette De Melo and Michael Warsaw highlight the new strategy to level out the playing field. You will learn. You will bite your nails. You will be on the edge of your seat. Also, Jeanette and Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, look at the Supreme Court's recent decision that bans 35-foot buffer zones at Massachusetts's abortion facilities. » READ MORE
June 20, 2014 - Fortnight for Freedom / The Little Oratory
This week on Register Radio, learn what you can do to defend religious freedom. Jeanette De Melo speaks with Archbishop William Lori about the upcoming Fortnight for Freedom and the celebration of religious liberty June 21 to July 4. Also… a resource for keeping the flame of faith alive in your family… Dan Burke talks with author Leila Lawler about The Little Oratory which helps Catholic families preserve Catholic culture. » READ MORE
June 13, 2014 - Pastoral Care of Families / A Roadmap for Catholic Men
This week on Register Radio Jeanette De Melo talks to Father Roger Landry about what "The Pope of the Family," St. John Paul II has to offer the pre-synod discussion on pastoral care of families. Then, Dan Burke talks to author Randy Hain this Father's Day weekend about his new book "Journey to Heaven: A Roadmap for Catholic Men." » READ MORE
June 6, 2014 - Marriage, Divorce, and Annunlments / Pilgrimage to the Holy Land
This week on Register Radio, Jeanette De Melo discusses Pope Francis, marriage, family, divorce and annulments with canon lawyer JD Flynn. Dan Burke talks to Register writer Marge Fenelon about the impact of her recent visit to the Holy Land and why all Catholics should consider a pilgrimage there at least once in their lives. » READ MORE
May 30, 2014 - Opus Dei in the U.S. / Great Catholic Books
This week on Register Radio, Jeanette De Melo talks to biographer John Coverdale about the cause for canonization Father Joseph Muzquiz, the priest who brought Opus Dei to the U.S. And Dan Burke discusses great books education with Magdalen College president George Harne and student Christopher Rand. » READ MORE
May 23, 2014 - Pope Francis' Holy Land Trip / Author David Scott
This week on Register Radio, Jeanette De Melo talks with the Register's Middle East correspondent Michele Chabin about Pope Francis' trip to the Holy Land and later in the show she discusses the new book, The Love that Made Mother Teresa, with author David Scott. » READ MORE
May 16, 2014 - Catholic College Commencements/Holy Wood Acting Studios
This week on Register Radio Jeanette De Melo discusses the good and the bad in Catholic college commencement speakers with the Cardinal Newman Society's Patrick Reilly and Dan Burke examines the work of Holy Wood Acting Studios with acting instructor Jeff Jordan. » READ MORE
May 9, 2014 - Mary's Role in the Spiritual Life / Blessed Francisco and Jacinta
This week on Register Radio, Dan Burke and theologian Father Fred Miller discuss Mother Mary's role in the spiritual life and later in the show he speaks with Sister Angela Coelho about the cause for canonization for the children of Fatima, Blessed Francisco and Jacinta. » READ MORE


text:
Skip to comments.The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority
Posted on 02/07/2006 5:02:07 AM PST by HarleyD
Traditional Roman Catholicism has always, in its official pronouncements, held sacred Scripture in high esteem. Indeed, doctors of the church such as Jerome, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas when dealing with Holy Writ at times sound positively Protestant. Unfortunately, Roman Catholicism has not followed their lead and has elevated extrabiblical tradition to the same level as the Bible. The authors maintain this is a serious error, having dire consequences on the practical formation of the layperson's Christian faith. Scripture itself should be the final authoritative guide for the Christian. As the apostle Paul reminds Timothy, "From infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15 [The New American Bible]).
Samples observed that Roman Catholicism is foundationally orthodox, but it has built much on this foundation that tends to compromise and undermine it. He concluded that Catholicism should therefore be viewed as "neither a cult (non-Christian religious system) nor a biblically sound church, but a historically Christian church which is in desperate need of biblical reform."
With the first two installments of this series being largely devoted to establishing that Catholicism is a historic Christian church, it is appropriate that in the remaining installments we turn our attention to the most critical doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants. This is especially important at a time when many ecumenically minded Protestants are ready to portray the differences between Catholics and Protestants as little more important than the differences that separate the many Protestant denominations. For although the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants do not justify one side labeling the other a cult, they do justify the formal separation between the two camps that began with the 16th-century Protestant Reformation and that continues today.
Among the many doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants, none are more fundamental than those of authority and justification. In relation to these the Protestant Reformation stressed two principles: a formal principle (sola Scriptura) and a material principle (sola fide)2: The Bible alone and faith alone. In this installment and in Part Four we will focus on the formal cause of the Reformation, authority. In the concluding installment, Part Five, we will examine its material cause, justification.
By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.
Second, the Bible is sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants "the Bible alone" means "the Bible only" is the final authority for our faith.
Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.
Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean as Catholics often assume that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance.
Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones.
One of the basic differences between Catholics and Protestants is over whether the Bible alone is the sufficient and final authority for faith and practice, or the Bible plus extrabiblical apostolic tradition. Catholics further insist that there is a need for a teaching magisterium (i.e., the Pope and their bishops) to rule on just what is and is not authentic apostolic tradition.
Catholics are not all agreed on their understanding of the relation of tradition to Scripture. Some understand it as two sources of revelation. Others understand apostolic tradition as a lesser form of revelation. Still others view this tradition in an almost Protestant way, namely, as merely an interpretation of revelation (albeit, an infallible one) which is found only in the Bible. Traditional Catholics, such as Ludwig Ott and Henry Denzinger, tend to be in the first category and more modern Catholics, such as John Henry Newman and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in the latter. The language of the Council of Trent seems to favor the traditional understanding.3
Whether or not extrabiblical apostolic tradition is considered a second source of revelation, there is no question that the Roman Catholic church holds that apostolic tradition is both authoritative and infallible. It is to this point that we speak now.
The Council of Trent emphatically proclaimed that the Bible alone is not sufficient for faith and morals. God has ordained tradition in addition to the Bible to faithfully guide the church.
Infallible guidance in interpreting the Bible comes from the church. One of the criteria used to determine this is the "unanimous consent of the Fathers."4 In accordance with "The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent" (Nov. 13, 1565), all faithful Catholics must agree: "I shall never accept nor interpret it ['Holy Scripture'] otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers."5
Catholic scholars advance several arguments in favor of the Bible and tradition, as opposed to the Bible only, as the final authority. One of their favorite arguments is that the Bible itself does not teach that the Bible only is our final authority for faith and morals. Thus they conclude that even on Protestant grounds there is no reason to accept sola Scriptura. Indeed, they believe it is inconsistent or self-refuting, since the Bible alone does not teach that the Bible alone is the basis of faith and morals.
In point of fact, argue Catholic theologians, the Bible teaches that apostolic "traditions" as well as the written words of the apostles should be followed. St. Paul exhorted the Thessalonian Christians to "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 3:6).
One Catholic apologist even went so far as to argue that the apostle John stated his preference for oral tradition. John wrote: "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13). This Catholic writer adds, "Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition...if, as proponents of sola Scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition?"6
Roman Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft lists several arguments against sola Scriptura which in turn are arguments for tradition: "First, it separates Church and Scripture. But they are one. They are not two rival horses in the authority race, but one rider (the Church) on one horse (Scripture)." He adds, "We are not taught by a teacher without a book or by a book without a teacher, but by one teacher, the Church, with one book, Scripture."7
Kreeft further argues that "sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality; that an effect cannot be greater than its cause." For "the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible." And "if the Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible."8
According to Kreeft, "denominationalism is an intolerable scandal by scriptural standards see John 17:20-23 and I Corinthians 1:10-17." But "let five hundred people interpret the Bible without Church authority and there will soon be five hundred denominations."9 So rejection of authoritative apostolic tradition leads to the unbiblical scandal of denominationalism.
Finally, Kreeft argues that "the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the Church to teach them."10 This being the case, using the Bible alone without apostolic tradition was not possible.
As convincing as these arguments may seem to a devout Catholic, they are devoid of substance. As we will see, each of the Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura fails, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.
Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.
Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be "God-breathed" (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are "competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called "Scripture" (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.
Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, "It is written," which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today.
What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?...You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition" (Matt. 15:3, 6).
It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy.
Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).11 This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, "You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it" (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, "Every word of God is tested....Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver" (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life..." (Rev. 22:18-19). sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically.
Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God's revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word.
Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation.
Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that "admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament." Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.12
Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.
It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the "traditions" (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.
This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired.
The fact that apostles sometimes referred to "traditions" they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to "maintain" them (1 Cor. 11:2) and "stand fast in them" (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called "inspired" or "unbreakable" or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture.
The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible. Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra ("from the seat" of Peter) ones.
Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books. Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35).
There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books the inspired books of the New Testament that they left for the church. This leads to another important point.
The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. "Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord" (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, "Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them... which he recorded in the book of the law of God" (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses' (cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, "Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord" (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to "take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters" (Isa. 8:1) and to "inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness" (30:8). Daniel had a collection of "the books" of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2).
Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase "It is written" (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not "understand the Scriptures" (Matt. 22:29). All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God's revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.
The Catholic use of 3 John to prove the superiority of oral tradition is a classic example of taking a text out of context. John is not comparing oral and written tradition about the past but a written, as opposed to a personal, communication in the present. Notice carefully what he said: "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13). Who would not prefer a face-to-face talk with a living apostle over a letter from him? But that is not what oral tradition gives. Rather, it provides an unreliable oral tradition as opposed to an infallible written one. sola Scriptura contends the latter is preferable.
The Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear.
Indeed, to assume that oral traditions of the apostles, not written in the Bible, are necessary to interpret what is written in the Bible under inspiration is to argue that the uninspired is more clear than the inspired. But it is utterly presumptuous to assert that what fallible human beings pronounce is clearer than what the infallible Word of God declares. Further, it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.
Kreeft's claim that Scripture and apostolic tradition are inseparable is unconvincing. Even his illustration of the horse (Scripture) and the rider (tradition) would suggest that Scripture and apostolic tradition are separable. Further, even if it is granted that tradition is necessary, the Catholic inference that it has to be infallible tradition indeed, the infallible tradition of the church of Rome is unfounded. Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition; they simply do not believe it is infallible. Finally, Kreeft's argument wrongly assumes that the Bible was produced by the Roman Catholic church. As we will see in the next point, this is not the case.
Kreeft's argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon,13 that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft's argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.
Kreeft's claim that the rejection of the Roman Catholic view on infallible tradition leads to the scandal of denominationalism does not follow for many reasons. First, this wrongly implies that all denominationalism is scandalous. Not necessarily so, as long as the denominations do not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity. Nor can one argue successfully that unbelievers are unable to see spiritual unity. For Jesus declared: "This is how all [men] will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).
Second, as orthodox Catholics know well, the scandal of liberalism is as great inside the Catholic church as it is outside of it. When Catholic apologists claim there is significantly more doctrinal agreement among Catholics than Protestants, they must mean between orthodox Catholics and all Protestants (orthodox and unorthodox) which, of course, is not a fair comparison.
Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants. When, however, we compare the differences with orthodox Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Catholicism. This fact negates the value of the alleged infallible teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. In point of fact, Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines with only an infallible Bible and no infallible interpreters of it!
Third, orthodox Protestant "denominations," though there be many, have not historically differed much more significantly than have the various "orders" of the Roman Catholic church. Orthodox Protestants' differences are largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines. So this Catholic argument against Protestantism is self-condemning.
Fourth, as J. I. Packer noted, "the real deep divisions have been caused not by those who maintained sola Scriptura, but by those, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, who reject it." Further, "when adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism...."14 Certainly this is often the case. A bad hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) is more crucial to deviation from orthodoxy than is the rejection of an infallible tradition in the Roman Catholic church.
Kreeft's argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. Third, Kreeft's argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.
There are many reasons Protestants reject the Roman Catholic claim that there is an extrabiblical apostolic tradition of equal reliability and authenticity to Scripture. The following are some of the more significant ones.
In point of fact, oral traditions are notoriously unreliable. They are the stuff of which legends and myths are made. What is written is more easily preserved in its original form. Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper notes four advantages of a written revelation: (1) It has durability whereby errors of memory or accidental corruptions, deliberate or not, are minimized; (2) It can be universally disseminated through translation and reproduction; (3) It has the attribute of fixedness and purity; (4) It is given a finality and normativeness which other forms of communication cannot attain.15
By contrast, what is not written is more easily polluted. We find an example of this in the New Testament. There was an unwritten "apostolic tradition" (i.e., one coming from the apostles) based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. They wrongly assumed that Jesus affirmed that the apostle John would not die. John, however, debunked this false tradition in his authoritative written record (John 21:22-23).
Common sense and historical experience inform us that the generation alive when an alleged revelation was given is in a much better position to know if it is a true revelation than are succeeding generations, especially those hundreds of years later. Many traditions proclaimed to be divine revelation by the Roman Catholic Magisterium were done so centuries, even a millennia or so, after they were allegedly given by God. And in the case of some of these, there is no solid evidence that the tradition was believed by any significant number of orthodox Christians until centuries after they occurred. But those living at such a late date are in a much inferior position than contemporaries, such as those who wrote the New Testament, to know what was truly a revelation from God.
It is acknowledged by all, even by Catholic scholars, that there are contradictory Christian traditions. In fact, the great medieval theologian Peter Abelard noted hundreds of differences. For example, some fathers (e.g., Augustine) supported the Old Testament Apocrypha while others (e.g., Jerome) opposed it. Some great teachers (e.g., Aquinas) opposed the Immaculate Conception of Mary while others (e.g., Scotus) favored it. Indeed, some fathers opposed sola Scriptura, but others favored it.
Now this very fact makes it impossible to trust tradition in any authoritative sense. For the question always arises: which of the contradictory traditions (teachings) should be accepted? To say, "The one pronounced authoritative by the church" begs the question, since the infallibility of tradition is a necessary link in the argument for the very doctrine of the infallible authority of the church. Thus this infallibility should be provable without appealing to the Magisterium. The fact is that there are so many contradictory traditions that tradition, as such, is rendered unreliable as an authoritative source of dogma.
Nor does it suffice to argue that while particular fathers cannot be trusted, nonetheless, the "unanimous consent" of the fathers can be. For there is no unanimous consent of the fathers on many doctrines "infallibly" proclaimed by the Catholic church (see below). In some cases there is not even a majority consent. Thus to appeal to the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic church to settle the issue begs the question.
The Catholic response to this is that just as the bride recognizes the voice of her husband in a crowd, even so the church recognizes the voice of her Husband in deciding which tradition is authentic. The analogy, however, is faulty. First, it assumes (without proof) that there is some divinely appointed postapostolic way to decide extrabiblically which traditions were from God.
Second, historical evidence such as that which supports the reliability of the New Testament is not to be found for the religious tradition used by Roman Catholics. There is, for example, no good evidence to support the existence of first century eyewitnesses (confirmed by miracles) who affirm the traditions pronounced infallible by the Roman Catholic church. Indeed, many Catholic doctrines are based on traditions that only emerge several centuries later and are disputed by both other traditions and the Bible (e.g., the Bodily Assumption of Mary).
Finally, the whole argument reduces to a subjective mystical experience that is given plausibility only because the analogy is false. Neither the Catholic church as such, nor any of its leaders, has experienced down through the centuries anything like a continual hearing of God's actual voice, so that it can recognize it again whenever He speaks. The truth is that the alleged recognition of her Husband's voice is nothing more than subjective faith in the teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church.
Not only are there contradictory traditions, but the Roman Catholic church is arbitrary and inconsistent in its choice of which tradition to pronounce infallible. This is evident in a number of areas. First, the Council of Trent chose to follow the weaker tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books inspired. The earliest and best authorities, including the translator of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, St. Jerome, opposed the Apocrypha.
Second, support from tradition for the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary is late and weak. Yet despite the lack of any real evidence from Scripture or any substantial evidence from the teachings of early church fathers, Rome chose to pronounce this an infallible truth of the Catholic faith. In short, Roman Catholic dogmas at times do not grow out of rationally weighing the evidence of tradition but rather out of arbitrarily choosing which of the many conflicting traditions they wish to pronounce infallible. Thus, the "unanimous consent of the fathers" to which Trent commanded allegiance is a fiction.
Third, apostolic tradition is nebulous. As has often been pointed out, "Never has the Roman Catholic Church given a complete and exhaustive list of the contents of extrabiblical apostolic tradition. It has not dared to do so because this oral tradition is such a nebulous entity."16 That is to say, even if all extrabiblical revelation definitely exists somewhere in some tradition (as Catholics claim), which ones these are has nowhere been declared.
Finally, if the method by which they choose which traditions to canonize were followed in the practice of textual criticism of the Bible, one could never arrive at a sound reconstruction of the original manuscripts. For textual criticism involves weighing the evidence as to what the original actually said, not reading back into it what subsequent generations would like it to have said. Indeed, even most contemporary Catholic biblical scholars do not follow such an arbitrary procedure when determining the translation of the original text of Scripture (as in The New American Bible).
In conclusion, the question of authority is crucial to the differences between Catholics and Protestants. One of these is whether the Bible alone has infallible authority. We have examined carefully the best Catholic arguments in favor of an additional authority to Scripture, infallible tradition, and found them all wanting. Further, we have advanced many reasons for accepting the Bible alone as the sufficient authority for all matters of faith and morals. This is supported by Scripture and sound reason. In Part Four we will go further in our examination of Catholic authority by evaluating the Catholic dogma of the infallibility of the Pope.
Bump to self for a later read.
Bookmark for later reading.
HarleyD, you post some really good threads. Did you notice how your Luther vs. Erasmus thread is still alive?
Anyway, thanks and bump for later read.
Most people back then knew the Scriptural text via the liturgy, not through having copies at home. And most of you, my friends, only know the Scriptures through translators. Translators who are fallible. And even those lucky few who can read Greek only know Scriptures through the manuscript evidence, which does not, I might point out, take us back to the original autographs of the Apostles but only to manuscripts which were copies of copies of copies.
None of us, I'm afraid, can claim a direct link to the Apostles via Scripture. We don't have Matthew, Luke, Mark, or John, or Paul in the originals. Any way you slice it, the Apostolic teaching had to reach us by being preserved and promoted and copied by those who lived after the Apostles. So the infallible Scripture doesn't get to us any other way but the ever-fallible hand of men.
You may say that God's ineffable wisdom deigned that it would be preserved, and preserved accurately. We agree. And He did so via the Church.
So fundamental to this question is what Church can the truth be found in since no Christian can deny that Christ established a Church.
For example the author states Only the Bible is infallible however he fails to addresses who has the authority to infallibly interpret it. He addresses this question by stating For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. This is nonsense. It is a well established fact that Protestants read the same bible yet come to a wide variety of interpretations. Thus the many denominations all claiming to have the truth. Perhaps he could have shared with us what Church has it right. Instead, he argues under the umbrella of Protestantism which can lead one to a number of different conclusions.
St. Francis De Sales hit the nail on the head when he said, We do not deny, to speak clearly, but that the knowledge of the true sacred books is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but we say that the Holy Spirit gives it to private individuals through the medium of the Church. Indeed if God had a thousand times revealed a thing to a private person we should not be obliged to believe it unless he stamped it so clearly that we could no longer call its validity in question. But we see nothing of this among your reformers. In a word, it is to the Church General that the Holy Spirit immediately addresses his inspirations and persuasions, then, by the preaching of the Church, he communicates them to private persons. It is the Spouse in whom the milk is produced, then the children suck it from her breasts. But you would have it, on the contrary, that God inspires private persons, and by these means the Church, that the children receive the milk and the mother is nourished at their breasts; an absurdity.
The Bible elevates extrabiblical tradition to the same level as the Bible. Else, Dr. Geisler, how do you even know what books belong in the canon? For, as Paul told the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
sola scriptura ping
Harley, I have a simple question for you and the people at CRI. If the Bible is both sufficient and "possesses final authority," why does an organization like CRI need to exist? CRI (I used to listen to the "The Bible Answer Man" as much as I could stand it) essentially sets themselves up as a Protestant magisterium, and anoints themselves the defenders of something they call "the historic Christian faith" (Who decides what that is? CRI, of course!).
But, according to their own doctrine, there should be no need for them to exist. If the Bible is perfectly sufficient, possesses final authority, and requires no authoritative human interpreter, then CRI's own doctrine precludes CRI's need to exist as much as it precludes the Pope's.
I'm pinging jude24 because he has some good insights on this.
These documents didn't derive their Authority from being selected; each one was Authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early Church merely listened and sensed that these were Authoritative documents.
For somebody now to say that the Canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.' I would say, 'THANKS FOR NOTHING! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.' We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the Canon." (emphasis mine)
Best, OP
OTOH, Campion... Perhaps you're the sort who requires an counter-signed Affidavit, in triplicate, from a General Synod of Royal Musicians... in order to know that the music of Beethoven is wonderful.
Best, OP
Note ... drstevej has been banned from FR.
I need that "master of the obvious" .gif.
Everyone knows they didn't "derive their authority from being selected" and were "authoritative before anyone gathered them together".
That's sort of like observing that diamonds are diamonds before anyone goes into a diamond mine and hacks them out of the rocks in which they're embedded. Sure enough, they are. That doesn't make diamond miners irrelevant to the process of acquiring a diamond ring.
It's hard to attach any real authoritative quality to a work before you know which work to attach it to. It's hard to attach authority to "Scripture" over and above anything else when you're not sure whether the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Didache, or the "Shepherd of Hermas" are "Scripture" or not.
Whether the music of Beethoven is wonderful or not is a matter of personal taste. (I happen to think that it is.)
The question of the composition of the NT canon is not a matter of esthetics or personal taste. I think you and I both know that it's a bit more important than that, and if you look at the history of canon formation, you'll find out that it's not as cut-and-dried as you like to pretend.
These are the philosophical questions that bother me - and I have not heard a satisfying answer yet. I'm still listening for one, however.
Um, no.
Aw, shucks... it's right there in God's Word, the Holy Bible.
The notion that "Sola scriptura is an extrabiblical protestant tradition" is... um... Well, just another Papist-Roman Extrabiblical Tradition of Men.
But y'all just go on worshipping the Honkin' Great Big Three-Tiered Hat. Ain't no skin off my back, if y'all wanna worship a guy wearing a multi-leveled Confectionary Cake on his head.
Cordially, OP
Introducing your own error by misinterpretation is precisely the problem. But you are entitled to your own personal interpretation.
Which establishes that Scripture is necessary for the man of God to be "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works".
It does not say that it is sufficient, however.
And how you get from what the "man of God" needs to the governance of the Church is a completely different question.
In context, it refers to the scripture Timothy had known "since infancy," which cannot possibly be the New Testament. "Old Testament Only"?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be *perfect*, *thoroughly* furnished unto *all* good works. (II Timothy 3:16-17)
Absolutely agree. But that doesn't say that scripture ALONE is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, etc.
BTW, that's just childish, and detracts from both your Christian witness and your argument. Keep it on the playground where it belongs.
Yes ... it does state that after Paul appeals to apostolic tradition in the previous verse.
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, (II Timothy 3:14-15).
**Absolutely agree. But that doesn't say that scripture ALONE is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, etc.**
But, according to their own doctrine, there should be no need for them to exist. If the Bible is perfectly sufficient, possesses final authority, and requires no authoritative human interpreter, then CRI's own doctrine precludes CRI's need to exist as much as it precludes the Pope's.
That's like saying that since the Roman Church is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition there should be no need for something like "Catholic Answers". CRI isn't any more a "magesterium" than "Catholic Answers" is.
In turn, I have a simple question for you. After the Church comes up with some purportedly infallible interpretation, who then interprets that infallible interpretation for you?
II Timothy 3:16-17 means necessary; but it does not mean sufficient. In other words, you have the scriptura, but not the sola.
See if you can figure out why, Jude. Then tell me.
I'm not baiting you. I'm honestly interested in your answer.
Best, OP
"Perfect" and "thoroughly"... both Synonyms, if not Superlatives, for "Sufficient" -- in any Lexicon in the world.
I guess that means that we have the Scriptura, and the Sola.
You were saying?
Best, OP
That's part of the second clause, not the first. It says scripture is necessary so that man might have all he needs. After all, without scripture, he would not have all he needs.
Your error in interpretation is precisely my point. Thanks for making it.
Your comparison doesn't hold water at all. Catholic Answers is obedient to the magisterium in Rome. To whom is CRI obedient, and why do they have any authority? To Scripture? To whose interpretation of Scripture? CRI's?
Moreover, CRI runs around criticizing people who are allegedly "in the Church" (by their definition). CA leaves that to the people who have the actual authority to do that sort of thing. The two organizations aren't equivalent.
After the Church comes up with some purportedly infallible interpretation, who then interprets that infallible interpretation for you?
This is the James White/William Webster "you gotta do private interpretation eventually" question.
It misses the point. The point is not to get everything perfect between my ears, the point is what interpretation governs the Church. So if there's serious disagreement about what an infallible pronouncement means, the bishops (or whoever is having the disagreement) go back to the infallible pronouncer and ask for a clarification.
In what language, on what planet?
Any Greek rhetorician can tell you that those adjectives modify "man of God," not "scripture". You're seriously misreading the text to support a position it doesn't teach.
It does not say that it is sufficient, however.
The Greek word artios means "complete", "sufficient", "whole", "qualified". Since the Scripture has the ability to make the man of God "complete", "sufficient", "whole", "qualified" for every good work, what else do you need to make the man of God " complete", "sufficient", "whole", "qualified" "for every good work"? You admit that Scripture is necessary, so what other good works are there other than what the Scripture necessitates? Can you provide me an authoritative list of such good works that are not necessitated in Scripture?
Hold on, now... you're prostrating yourselves before some guy who's walking around wearing a big white parking-garage on his head, and you're calling me "childish"?
Sorry, this is still the Land of Free Speech. If the Muslims don't like the portrayal of Muhammed in an Editorial Cartoon, they can go pound sand -- and yes, I am still allowed, by the First Amendment, to point out the fact that the Pope's get-up is silly-looking.
Because, after all... the Pope's get-up is silly-looking. Hey, it happens; The Hindu conception of Cosmology is pretty darn aesthetically-absurd, also. I mean, really -- four elephants on the back of a honkin' big turtle? Terry Pratchett would never have made a fortune off his DiscWorld Novels if it weren't absurd.
Likewise... the Pope's get-up is silly-looking. Sorry. It's true.
These things happen.
Best, OP
CRI is not a church, and neither is Catholic Answers. Since neither one has anything to do with what interpretation governs the Church, both are irrelevant to the question of final authority in the Church.
It's not just childish, it's a lie. The pope isn't worshipped.
Note ... drstevej has been banned from FR. 15 posted on 02/07/2006 8:56:03 AM MST by NYer
Do you take credit for drstevej being banned?
That is a false analogy. First, it is Protestantism that asserts that the Bible alone is sufficient, and that, as a consequence, the Spirit will guide all individuals to a knowledge of a single set of truths. Catholics do not say that, asserting that both Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority are the other two legs, along with Scripture, upon which Truth stands. Second, the need for Catholic Answers DOES exist when we live in a world with a multiplicity of erroneous Biblical assertions due to the mistaken notion of Sola Scriptura. Catholics are not responsible for the non-Catholic surroundings they find themselves in, save only to attempt to correct them. Hence the need for CA.
I need to call it a day, and I can already see that you are *Perfectly* and *Thoroughly* Equal to the Task.
(By which I certainly mean that you are sufficiently equal to the task. No normal English-Speaking Person would doubt that such was my meaning; but, you know these Romanists.... it's necessary to their theology that Words not mean what they Say).
Best, OP
All limes are a given by God and are profitable for flavor and smoothness: that the Cuba Libre may be perfectly furnished for all good toasts.
Now, you want to tell me you only need limes to make a Cuba Libre?
***Note ... drstevej has been banned from FR.***
He was?
Now, you want to tell me you only need limes to make a Cuba Libre?
Far be it from me not to give credit when its do. Lol. That was good Dave.
BTW congrats with the Steelers.
Dear SoothingDave,
This could be fun.
All chocolate icing is given by God and is profitable for cake-making: That the chocolate cake may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good birthday parties.
I dunno.
My knowledge of Booze extends about thus far:
I enjoy your conversation, SD... but on that analogy, you just lost me entirely.
(sheepish grin). But now, I really must go. best, OP
LOL...good question...but it's the Church itself again! Benedict comes out with a dogma, I can't believe the dogma hosoever I want to, I must believe it *in the sense that the Church intended it.* Final interpretation *always* rests with the Church, with the college of bishops and the occupant of the See of Peter at its head.
This hit home for me with CRI. I was listening to one of Hank's shows on Calvinism where he had two speakers that were on opposite sides of the issue. They went at it hammer and tongs--respectfully of course, but Hank kept *stressing* amidst it all that, and I quote: "it was an in-house debate", and that both positions "were acceptable within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy." I am still a bit puzzled over this last statement. How is it that Hank is able to define what positions were permissible within Christian orthodoxy?
Campion, you hit on something here, namely that Hank defines *the historic Christian faith* by the fact that there have been both Calvinists and non-Calvinists within this loose amalgam of Protestant Christianity. Namely--if you want to put it this way--there were respected Protestant Fathers on both sides of the issue, therefore both positions were tolerable.
However, what made him choose only the Protestant Fathers for this analysis? Why Luther and Calvin, and not Cajetan and Bellarmine? And why stop at the 1500s instead of going back through the 15th, the 13th, the 9th, the 4th, all the way back to the Apostolic Age itself?
It is not a matter of tradition vs. no tradition. Rather, it is matter of selective tradition vs. universal tradition.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be *perfect*, *thoroughly* furnished unto *all* good works. (II Timothy 3:16-17)
Amen! But being profitable is not the same as being all-sufficient. Observe: "All bats can fly, as it is profitable for them to extract nourishment from insects in the air or to fly to a source of fruit, that all bats may be perfect in the niche created for them by God." This is true, but, if the question is about what animals can fly, is it sufficient? No. Most birds can fly, and so do many insects. Citing bats as the sole examples of the benefits of animal flight will be not only insufficient but actually false, as they are not the "sole" fliers.
It's the same type of situation here. Scripture IS profitable as noted by St. Paul, but so is the oral teaching he himself (as well as the other Apostles) presented, as noted in 2Thessalonians 2:15. So is the Church corporately such a profitable source, as it alone is described as the "pillar and bulwark of the Truth." (1Timothy 3:15). All of this specifically points to sources of authority that, along with the Bible per se, constitute the fulness of revelation.
How else could it be? The hearers of St. Paul's second Letter to Timothy did NOT have the entire New Testament at hand. Not only was it not completed at the time, but it would be many decades before all of the scattered Christian communities had all 27 books of the NT before them, and several cneturies beyond that before ALL of the non-Scriptural writings were definitively culled from the collection. Further, many, if not most, of the early Christians, and Christians right up to at least the 18th Century, could not read and/or did not have a personal copy of the Scriptures available to them. What of them? Was the Teaching Church not there precisely to bolster them in the Word and the Sacraments?
Your ecclesial pedigree has lost the notion of how the canon of Scripture came to be, and simple observation proves that its assertions about the Holy Spirit guiding each individual to a "right understanding" of the meaning of Scripture are demonstrably false and utter nonsense. There is not one single chapter of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, that can be parsed out by two Protestants without at least one disagreement about its contents. And no wonder. You have jettisoned the Church, which is the compiler, vetter and interpreter of Scripture, the New Testament of which was secondarly authored (along with God, the primary Author) by eight of its early members.
I'll ignore as simple ignorance your statements about alleged papal worship, delivered in such a thoughtful and elegant tone. If you have been on FR for even a month, Catholic responses to such juvenile rantings should have set you straight on the sheer silliness of such a charge by now.
Pax Domini.
He doesn't always wear a cake:
Was Athanasius a Protestant?
"...from the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources..."
De Decretis, 31
"The Holy and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the Truth'
Contra Gentiles, 1:1
"These [canonical] books are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them."
Festal Letters 39
"For they were spoken and written by God."
De Incarnatione 56
"...the Scriptures...will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we said"
De Incarnatione 56
"Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us."
Ad Epis Aeg 4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
I'm a traditional Jew. I like my religion straight up, neither shaken nor stirred. I've been saying Yizkor, and seriously, for years, but when rabbis don't trust the power of Yizkor and feel the need to add an English call-and-response, they lose me. At the Passover seder, I'm thinking about the leaving of Egypt; I don't need dynamic rabbis comparing the seder to the Civil Rights movement, the Arab Spring, or global warming.
Is there a synagogue website that doesn't describe their rabbi as "dynamic"? Rabbis looking for jobs swear they're dynamic. And yet the more that we have "dynamic" rabbis, the more Jews tell pollsters that they find Judaism lethargic.
Perhaps the problem is exacerbated by Newsweek's "Best Rabbi" surveys, in which rabbis are seemingly judged by "dynamic" criteria that have little or nothing to do with the job that so many rabbis actually do, and do well: teaching, counseling, and being a community's gentle shepherd. Though even rabbis on the Newsweek list have disparaged it in private, Newsweek's list has become used by those same rabbis for fundraising and prestige, leaving unlisted rabbis somehow diminished.
What's attractive to Newsweek, and other media, even Jewish media, gives a new generation of rabbis incentive—even pressure—to do something, anything, to make their synagogue and Judaism more exciting, more Newsweek-worthy, when all along the most beautiful moments of Judaism are the quiet moments that are hardly dynamic: the Blessing of the Moon; or a subtle chasidic insight, exchanged in passing; or an intimate exchange with a rabbi in a hospital corridor. The best rabbis do what is timeless, rather than dynamic activity that is innovative and flashy but untested and often fleeting.
Like baseball or chess, Judaism is slow and boring—until it isn't, or until the observer learns to see the beauty and understand the mysteries inherent in the cerebral stillness and anticipation. Why is the experience of a game at Wrigley Field—where there is no rock music, the scoreboard is dull without animation, where it rains and gets cold—nevertheless so treasured while the weather-controlled Astrodome, once called "the eighth wonder of the world," designed to keep fans forever dazzled, is now empty, put to pasture? When dynamic innovations fail or grow stale, and they often do, what then?
As at the Astrodome, there is some evidence that the more rabbis are dynamic and attempt to dazzle, the more the people stay home. For all of the modern innovations in recent years, the pews are emptier than before.
Rabbi Charles Simon, executive director of the Conservative movement's Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs, recently wrote a paper in which he noticed that "smaller percentages of men are currently active in our synagogues," despite decades of dynamic change that was supposed to fill the pews, not empty them.
Similarly, among the Orthodox, the more dynamic the shul, the easier it is to find a seat. In the famously dynamic Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, home of the first Orthodox woman "rabba," membership has plummeted, from an announced high of 850, according to New York magazine in 2010, to just over 600, according to a letter to The Jewish Week from that synagogue's president.
There are many theories going around about how to be a more successful rabbinic leader, and here are two. The first is the Stewardess Theory—be less of a pilot and more of a flight attendant. You walk up and down the aisles, "Do you need a blanket? Are you OK? Are you hot? Cold? Do you need help with your life preserver?" Do that well and you can "fly" your shul anywhere.
The second theory of rabbinic dynamics is the Seven-Percent Solution. If a rabbi is seven percent ahead of the congregation, that rabbi is brilliant, terrific.
At 17 percent, you've probably lost the congregation.
The Seven-Percent Solution accepts that there is room for being mildly dynamic, but rabbis who are mildly dynamic rarely stay that way. The problem is that dynamism inevitably becomes predictable, much as Ed Sullivan's audiences grew tired of seeing the once-exciting vaudeville trick of balancing spinning dishes on a pole.
Instead of trusting the congregation to appreciate basic, no-frills Judaism, the dynamic rabbi's inevitable mistake is to be more "look at me," always more dynamic, not less. The dynamic rabbi starts resembling nothing so much as the Cat In The Hat, with the fish and the dress and the cake and the rake, fearing that the congregation will grow bored if ever the sun wasn't shining.
Perhaps it would be easier to show how this leadership dilemma works out in politics, how a dynamic politician can hit a brick wall that he never sees coming.
Let's go back to 1937. No one was more beloved than Franklin Roosevelt. Though a child of the upper class, FDR was a populists' dream, humbled in his wheelchair, as crippled as the country. And then it went to his head.
After wining a second landslide, in 1936, controlling 77 out of 96 seats in the Senate, he figured he should be even more dynamic in his bid to end the Depression, which was still raging after four years of dynamic legislation.
In the book "Supreme Power," Jeff Shesol writes that according to Roosevelt, "If it was necessary, it was right; if it was right, it was legal." (A logic that most dynamic rabbis apply to Judaism.) And so it was that when the Supreme Court ruled that several of Roosevelt's dynamic innovations were unconstitutional, FDR tried to get the Senate—where he had that massive majority—to let him "pack" the court, in which he would add as many as six new justices (who'd support him, of course) for every elderly judge who happened to stand in his way.
Was Roosevelt wrong? After all, the idea that there must only be nine judges was not from Sinai or Philadelphia. The Constitution left it to the Senate to decide how many judges there should be, and in the 1800s (not that long before Roosevelt, if you think about it) the number of justices was fluid, ranging from five to six, to ten and back to nine. If Madison or Jefferson had thought of it first, no one would have thought Roosevelt's plan inherently unethical or immoral.
The same with dynamic halachic change. If the Talmud's founding fathers decided that it was OK to have women rabbis, or patrilineal descent, or any one of a dozen other modern innovations, no one would object today. There is nothing inherently wrong, unethical or immoral about these innovations.
So why do these changes, meant to excite and respond to the people, result in fewer people in the pews? Why did Roosevelt's idea for the court, meant to benefit the New Deal, get so battered?
The answer is simply that tradition has more of powerful hold on our hearts than the innovators understand. Whatever baseball's problems, declaring two strikes to be an out, the better to attract the "unaffiliated" fan, would more likely lose the committed fans rather than turn the uncommitted fans into committed ones. As much as fans love the home run, or might think it clever to light eight candles on the first night of Chanukah (who could object to more light?), putting baseball or religion on steroids has only left baseball or religion the sorrier.
Roosevelt stopped thinking that he was bound by the rules of consultation, compromise and the political process, which is the way that tradition validates change. He didn't see the virtue of going slow, the wisdom of the Seven-Percent Solution. People still loved Roosevelt but flinched at the idea of such an Imperial Presidency. Modern Jews may love an individual rabbi but don't love an Imperial Rabbinate.
In the 1930s, down in Louisiana, Huey Long was as dynamic as a politician could get. Was he a dictator, as some said? Hardly. He was elected time and again by secret ballot, and all his laws were passed by freely elected representatives of the people. He did everything from leading the marching band on football Saturdays to initiating a series of terrific and populist bills, and the legislature permitted him everything that a shul's board of directors and committees permits a strong rabbi.
At first, Huey Long was all that was good about a dynamic leader. He lifted spirits. He cheered people up, had them singing "Every Man A King," with lyrics about "every neighbor a friend." His admirers happily called him "Kingfish," after the character on the Amos & Andy radio comedy.
And then comedy turned tragic. He started calling himself Kingfish just a little too often—acted like a kingfish, too. He felt he had to forever top himself, only to become synonymous with arrogance and authoritarianism, which is how a dynamic leader can be misunderstood.
Today, what should a Rav Kingfish do? He should start by trusting tradition, the magic inherent in the old and slow ways of doing things. He should trust a congregation's need for quiet and meditation. Most people have a whole lot to think about, and talk to God about, without needing a rabbi's dynamic impositions or distractions. What people crave even more than innovation is a rabbi's ability to simply teach the subtle mysteries of faith, to facilitate introspection in visits to the sick or to the forgotten—and aren't so many of us forgotten, more than anyone knows? There is something holy about the Flight Attendant or Stewardess Theory, simply walking the aisles, noticing if someone is missing from their seat, if someone might need a blanket, or need help with a life preserver, or how to find the emergency exit.
Anyone who has loved a baby, or loved a dying friend or an elderly parent ravaged by age and incapable of speech, knows that the most dynamic love can exist in silence, in stillness, in a soulful place beyond language, where love and relationships are about nothing so much as modesty and compromise.
That kind of leadership, through selflessness and a sense of grace, is not only for the hospital or crisis but every bit as needed for a healthy congregation, one that comes together to be with a beloved God, who Himself knows when to hide His face.
Jonathan Mark is associate editor of The Jewish Week.
What's attractive to Newsweek, and other media, even Jewish media, gives a new generation of rabbis incentive—even pressure—to do something, anything, to make their synagogue and Judaism more exciting, more Newsweek-worthy, when all along the most beautiful moments of Judaism are the quiet moments that are hardly dynamic: the Blessing of the Moon; or a subtle chasidic insight, exchanged in passing; or an intimate exchange with a rabbi in a hospital corridor. The best rabbis do what is timeless, rather than dynamic activity that is innovative and flashy but untested and often fleeting.
Each time these lists are published, I rapidly scan the names to make certain that my name is NOT on the list. In fact, the best rabbis I know have never made any list. They haven't the time to be dynamic or innovative as they are far too busy with the "quiet" and "beautiful" moments.
As for the increasingly-available seats in the pews, I'm not certain it is fair to single out one rabbi and one shul when, in fact, we are all facing dwindling numbers. For some, the economic downturn of the past couple of years have crippled the community. For others, demographics have a clear and heavy hand in the decrease. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, zt"l, would most certainly be described as dynamic and it did not detract from what he had to teach. But even he, during these difficult times, would find his pews less full.
That was a well-written, intelligent, meaningful, insightful article. It more or less summarizes my world-view.
Wordsworth said something like, "The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life." You must be a fan.
This article was a pleasure to read as someone who was recently hired as a dynamic, young rabbi of a synagogue. On my interview I was told that the shul is looking for someone "young and energetic" to attract members to the synagogue. My wife and I made it very clear that we're not interested in creating the "coolest/hippest" shul in town, but someplace that will be, first and foremost, a house of G-d. After we accomplish that, I would be happy to serve the role of an entertainer. As Prof. Mehrabian proved, verbal communication only accounts for 7% of understanding so I imagine that my age and composure had a greater impact than anything that I actually said. I took the position in September. I'm not sure how many lives I've affected from my "dynamic" speeches from the pulpit. But, every time I make a visit to a hospital, nursing home, or shiva house I know that I am making an impact. If we rabbis focused as much on our hospital visits as we did on writing the perfect drasha, I'm sure we would have much fewer people who feel lost in our congregations.
I agree on all counts, except that the phenomenon is not recent. When I was in YU over thirty years ago I used to refer to these guys, as a class, as "DYR's", "Dynamic Young Rabbis", because already back then every ad to fill a rabbinic position, as well as every blurb on any rabbi who rated a blurb, had to include the appellation "dynamic", more-often-than-not in conjunction with "young".
Most of my friends are rabbis, some of them even dynamic, but I'm not in a position to judge whether the issue is different in degree or in kind from what it was back then.
For a humorous send-up of a similar situation, see "Dave Barry's Only Travel Guide You'll Ever Need". In it, each description of a state of the Union has the word "dynamic" wedged in somewhere, usually by force, like "See their dynamic strawberries." (I made that up, but it conveys the sense.) I assume that their actual promotional literature uses the term as promiscuously as the Jewish community.
Jonathan: That last line was brilliant -- Even God Himself knows how to hide His face (hester panim).
Aryeh Spero
Comment Guidelines
The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.


text:
Driver cited after hitting building in Plainfield
PLAINFIELD A Williamstown man who crashed his vehicle into a building in Plainfield village Saturday during the towns 100th anniversary celebration of its fire department has been cited by Vermont State Police.
State police say John Buskey, 36, was cited Tuesday on a charge of negligent operation and is scheduled to appear in Washington County criminal court in late October.
Witnesses said Buskey was driving very fast on Mill Street when he tried to turn left onto Main Street and hit the corner of an apartment building. His vehicle ended up hanging precariously off a bridge. Buskey was pulled out of the vehicle when it started tipping forward toward the Winooski River.
State police said Buskey did not suffer any known injuries in the crash and that no one was home in the apartment he hit.MORE IN This Just InMONTPELIER Grace Phelps scored twice, while Victoria Gates, Ally Brink and Alaura Rich also... Full StoryBURLINGTON Republican gubernatorial candidate Phil Scott has been accused of breaking campaign... Full StoryBRATTLEBORO Entergy Nuclear says it has found a potential source of water infiltration into... Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed


text:
Otter invited to Canada national camp
Erie Otters defenseman Adam Pelech has been invited to participate in Canada's National Junior Team selection camp, which is set for Dec. 11-13 at the Markin MacPhail Centre Canada Olympic Park in Calgary, Alberta.
The third-year veteran ranks among the OHL's top scoring defenseman this season with 24 points in 29 games.
He will be joined by 11 other OHL players -- goaltender Malcolm Subban (Belleville), defensemen Cody Ceci (Ottawa), Dougie Hamilton (Niagara), Scott Harrington (London) and Ryan Murphy (Kitchener) and forwards Tom Wilson (Plymouth), Ryan Strome (Niagara), Mark Scheifele (Barrie), Sean Monahan (Ottawa), Boone Jenner (Oshawa) and Lucas Lessio (Oshawa). The team will be coached by Steve Spott, Kitchener coach and general manager.
- Otters goaltender Oscar Dansk will participate in Sweden's National Junior Team camp starting Dec. 15 in Norrtalje, Sweden. He has 7-14-1-3 record, 3.64 goals-against average and .905 save percentage in 25 games this season.


text:
Hotels in La Jolla
La Jolla Cove Suites1155 Coast Blvd, La Jolla 2.5 out of 5.0
Offering direct access to the beach, this La Jolla hotel is within a 10-minute walk of Children's Cove and La Jolla Cove. Cuvier Park and Athenaeum Music and ...
La Valencia Hotel1132 Prospect St, La Jolla 4.0 out of 5.0
Located in the center of La Jolla Village, surrounded by fine shops, museums, and restaurants, this historic Mediterranean-style hotel sits atop La Jolla Cove ...
Sheraton La Jolla Hotel3299 Holiday Ct, La Jolla 3.5 out of 5.0
Set on a tropical hillside, this multi-building California hotel is a half-mile from the University of California-San Diego and within 5 miles of downtown La ...
Inn By The Sea La Jolla7830 Fay Ave, La Jolla 2.5 out of 5.0
Located in the center of the village of La Jolla, this San Diego-area hotel is 2 blocks from La Jolla Cove, 3 miles from Birch Aquarium, 10 miles from SeaWorld, ...
Hyatt Regency La Jolla3777 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego 4.0 out of 5.0
4 miles from Torrey Pines Golf Course and 8 miles from SeaWorld, this Michael Graves-designed hotel lies on 11 acres in the Golden Triangle high-tech/biotech ...
La Jolla Shores Hotel8110 Camino Del Oro, La Jolla 3.0 out of 5.0
Set amid gardens, fountains, and terra-cotta walkways, this beachfront California hotel is 3 miles from downtown La Jolla's upscale boutiques and 10 miles from ...
San Diego Marriott La Jolla4240 La Jolla Village Dr, La Jolla 4.0 out of 5.0
Located in the Golden Triangle business and technology corridor, this 15-story La Jolla hotel is adjacent to the University of California, San Diego, and is ...
Embassy Suites by Hilton San Diego - La Jolla4550 La Jolla Village Dr, San Diego 3.5 out of 5.0
The Embassy Suites Hotel San Diego is a short drive from UCSD, SeaWorld, and San Diego Zoo. Located in the Golden Triangle biotech/high-tech region, this California ...
Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines10950 N Torrey Pines Rd, La Jolla 4.0 out of 5.0
Perched on the bluffs along the California coast, this resort hotel offers a horizon-spanning view of the Pacific and is adjacent to the renowned Torrey Pines ...
Hotel La Jolla, Curio Collection by Hilton7955 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla 4.0 out of 5.0
This La Jolla hotel, set 8 blocks from the beach, is located 5 miles from the Torrey Pines Golf Course and Mission Bay. Downtown San Diego is 12 miles away.
Recently Booked Hotels in La Jolla
Hotels in La Jolla, California
La Jolla is an exclusive coastal enclave roughly 14 miles north of San Diego. It combines the charm of small European resort towns with the laid-back lifestyle of Southern California. The city is home to spectacular beaches, luxurious hotels, high-end eateries, cultural events and attractions, and some of the most expensive real estate in the country. When you are ready to visit to La Jolla, remember to use Orbitz. Travelers who use Orbitz.com have access to affordable rates on hotels, rental cars and air tickets.
The Village of La Jolla
The Village is La Jolla's main business district and is home to many of the city's restaurants, shops, and commercial buildings. The Museum of Contemporary Art, the La Jolla Historical Society, and a Pre-Columbian art gallery, as well as high-end shops such as Talbot's and Ralph Lauren, call this area home. Restaurants are plentiful here and varied. You can go formal at George's Ocean Terrace, nosh on Italian at La Dolce Vita Ristorante, or grab some fish and chips at Cody's. The annual Art and Wine Festival is one of the city's most popular events and takes place in the heart of the village every October.
The La Jolla Inn (lajollainn.com) offers spectacular water views to its guests. Each room is individually appointed and spacious, offering separate sleeping and living spaces. The hotel offers a complimentary breakfast and newspaper that you can opt to enjoy on the sundeck or have delivered to your room. Rates start at $119 per night.
The Pantai Inn (pantaiinn.com) brings a touch of Bali to La Jolla. The inn was nominated as one of the top 100 new and newly remodeled hotels of the world by Fodor's for its sophisticated elegance. The inn's villas come equipped with fireplaces, carved wood canopy beds, full kitchens, and the some of the finest linens available. Room rates start at $288 per night.
Other village hotels include the Grand Colonial Hotel (thegrandcolonial.com), with rates starting at $208 per night, the La Jolla Cove Suites (lajollacove.com), with rates starting at $179 per night, and La Valencia Hotel (lavalencia.com), with rates starting at $153 per night.
La Jolla Shores
It's all about the beach in La Jolla Shores, a neighborhood centered around Laureate Park. Just one mile long, its beach is known as one of the best in La Jolla. Since it is home to one of the few area boat launches, it is a popular spot for kayakers.
The Holiday Inn Express La Jolla (hiexpress.com) is located just two blocks from the beach and within walking distance of several shops and restaurants. It offers comfortable rooms, in-room refrigerators and microwaves, a complimentary breakfast, and a free morning newspaper. Room rates start at $113 per night.
Just one block from the popular Windansea Beach, the La Jolla Beach Travelodge (lajollatravelodge.com) features rooms that are comfortable and affordable. It offers standard rooms as well as suites and larger rooms with three beds to accommodate families. Room rates start at $55 per night.
Rub Elbows with the Rich and Famous
La Jolla is a city of wealth, sandy beaches, high-end boutiques, and gourmet eateries, but it will make you feel at home. Like most Southern California beach towns, life moves slowly here. Whether you are visiting for the first time or are coming back to see it again, use Orbitz.com to make your travel arrangements. With just a few clicks of your mouse, you can reserve a room in one of the many La Jolla hotels, book your flights, and even rent a car.
Cities near La Jolla
- San Diego (8 mi)
- Chula Vista (21.37 mi)
- Oceanside (24.83 mi)
- Encinitas (13.42 mi)
- Carlsbad (18.17 mi)
- La Jolla (0.55 mi)
- San Marcos (20.12 mi)
- Coronado (14.89 mi)
- National City (16.31 mi)
- Solana Beach (8.96 mi)
- Vista (23.62 mi)
- Del Mar (6.3 mi)
- Imperial Beach (21.02 mi)
- Escondido (21.92 mi)
- Poway (15.57 mi)
- La Mesa (15.93 mi)
- Rancho Santa Fe (11.29 mi)
- Santee (13.42 mi)
- Cardiff-by-the-Sea (10.73 mi)
- El Cajon (21.05 mi)
Top Points of Interests in La Jolla
- Seaworld (7.09 mi)
- San Diego Zoo (10.51 mi)
- San Diego State University (11.79 mi)
- University of San Diego (7.22 mi)
- La Jolla Cove (1.73 mi)
- University of California-San Diego (1.03 mi)
- Balboa Park (10.79 mi)
- San Diego Convention Center (11.97 mi)
- Legoland California (18.41 mi)
- San Diego City College (11.51 mi)
- San Diego Zoo Safari Park (21.27 mi)
- Mission Beach (6.38 mi)
- Carlsbad Premium Outlets (18.55 mi)
- USS Midway Museum (11.26 mi)
- Petco Park (11.99 mi)
- Coronado Beach (12.95 mi)
- Qualcomm Stadium (9.29 mi)
- Maritime Museum of San Diego (11.04 mi)
- San Diego Coronado Bridge (13.09 mi)
- Ocean Beach Park (7.76 mi)
More to Explore
Recommended Cities For You
* Prices reflect the lowest "base rate" found over the next 30 days. Rates are subject to change and may not include taxes and fees, hotel service charges, extra person charges, or incidentals, such as room service. All rates are displayed in USD unless otherwise noted. Converted rates are provided for your convenience. They are based on today's exchange rate, but the hotel will charge you in the local currency.


text:
There are indications that media producers are getting on the religious literacy bandwagon.Read more »
Even England's bishops voted for military action this week – in a motion that seemed wholesale in scope. [See our report here.]Read more »
WALID Aly is a well-known Australian media commentator. This week on Channel Ten's The Project he produced an impassioned and compelling speech about the Paris killings. This went viral, achieving 27 million views on social media within just a few days. That is more hits than there are people in Australia.Read more »


text:
George Hueftle, 65 - March 28, 2007
George G. Hueftle, 65, of Brady, died Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at Brady.
Services were held on Saturday, March 24, at the Brady High School gymnasium. Burial was at the Gaslin Cemetery.
Hueftle was born on Dec. 5, 1941, to Earl and Almina (Francis) Hueftle at Eustis. He spent his childhood in Eustis and graduated from Eustis High School in 1960.
He married Yvonne Anderson on Oct. 20, 1963, at Gothenburg and spent his married life in Brady. He was a farmer/rancher and had retired from the U.S. Postal Service as a rural mail carrier.
Hueftle was active as a scout leader, belonged to the Brady Volunteer Fire Department, helped as an assistant basketball coach and as a referee for high school as well as college basketball and football games.
He also served as an EMT, Brady School Board member and a member of Church of Christ and service as past deacon.
Hueftle enjoyed being a grandfather and a father as well as hunting, fishing and sports, as he was playing city league basketball, according to family members.
?He was preceded in death by: his parents, Earl and Almina; a son, Brad; brother, Arlus; three sisters—Cleo Losey, Gwen Johnson and Carol Hueftle.
?Survivors include: his wife of 44 years, Yvonne Hueftle of Brady; a son, Monte (fiance, JoAnn) of North Platte; daughter-in-law, Heidi Barrett; four grandchildren—Cane, Eli, Aidan and Caitlin Hueftle; sisters-in-law—Dorene Hoffman of McCook, Janice (Dick) Sprague of North Platte and Carolyn Anderson of Mesa, AZ; brothers-in-law—Tom Losey of Republican City, Corky Hayes, Kent (Pat) Anderson and Roger (Sandy) Anderson, both of Brady, and Lyle McCarter of North Platte; numerous nieces and nephews; special friend, Jonny Rupe of Holdrege.
A memorial has been established.
Online condolences may be sent to the family at www.blase strauser.com. Arrangements have been placed in the care of Blase-Strauser Memorial Chapel of Gothenburg.
Latest Headlines
- Training for emergency preparedness
- Gothenburg FFA members compete at state fair
- Learning to adapt to change
- City Council sets tax request and levy for 2016-17
- Cornhusking contest returns to Harvest Festival after 17 year absence
- Summer evening bike ride goes wrong
- New hospital safety ratings now available to the public
- Mentees, others share value of TeamMates


text:
Peppermint Snowflake Candy-Coated Cookie
Additional Information
Step 1
Prepare and roll out dough. Cut cookies using snowflake cutter from kit. Bake and cool cookies.
Step 2
Place cookies on cooling grid over cookie sheet. Use cut disposable bag and melted candy cane candy from kit, to cover cookies. Tap grid gently to remove air bubbles. Chill until firm.
Step 3
Use cut disposable bag and melted dark cocoa candy from kit to pipe outline veins on each arm of snowflake. Chill until firm.
Step 4
Use cut disposable bag and melted dark cocoa candy from kit to pipe dots at ends and center of each vein and at center point of cookie. Chill until firm.
Cookie Sheet
Cooling Grid
Item(s) added to the shopping cart!View Shopping Cart Continue Shopping
Item(s) added to your Favorites!View Favorites Continue Shopping
You Might Also Like
Add dimension and great holiday excitement with 3-D snowflake cookies. Cut 3 cookies from our classic Grandma?s Gingerbread Recipe, bake, cut in half and assemble with melted candy. Pipe additional snowflake features with white candy melts.
Build these fun seasonal snowflake pops using the Snowflakes Nesting Metal Cutter Set, Smiley Face Lollipop Mold and White Candy Melts. Candy corn makes their carrot noses!
Delicately design snowflake mold features three exquisite patterns in a three-cavity mold. These candy lollipops make great gifts for teachers, Scout Leaders, neighbors and more.