Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[mackbrislawn]

Our claim is that the substance of verbal tradition is no different than what is contained in the Scriptures.

QUOTE]

I personally agree–the substance of verbal tradition is no different than what is contained in the Scriptures.

The problem arises, however, in determining what it is that is contained in the Scriptures! In that question, there is considerable debate. Many interpet the Scriptures in a way that does not agree with verbal tradition.

This relates back to the question posed earlier by the Jehovah’s Witnesses–suppose a bible dropped down from the sky in a desert and someone picked it up and read it, would that person come to believe in the Trinity? Well, we would have to admit to the JW, that no, he would probably not come to think of God as Trinity the way we do. Of course, we could also turn that question around on the JW and ask, would that same person in the desert come to believe that the Watchtower was God’s organization on earth? Certainly not. Would they come to believe that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914? Doubtful.

The fact of the matter is, there is really no way to predict what that person would come to believe upon reading Scripture. Because we have no way of knowing what prior ideas that person has in his skull. Does he believe in God at all? Does he believe in mulitiple gods? What attitude does he have toward his reading? Is it literal? Symbolic? Allegorical? If he believed in many gods, he might very well take Jesus to be one of them. Would he even connect the God of Jesus with the God of Abraham? Possibly not. The gnostics didn’t.

So, one’s prior assumptions will determine what you take out of the bible. The JW’s ask their question about the bible falling into the desert as a way of illustrating someone unfamiliar with the bible who discovers it for the first time. A real example of today would be for a non-Chrisitan, untaught in Christian teachings, who picks up a Gideon bible in his motel room and reads it for the first time. Would he understand it properly? Again, it is doubtful.

Peter states this himself in 2Peter 3:15-16, “…just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Peter applies this to the rest of the Scriptures as well as to the specific writings of Paul. Hence, scripture itself asserts that an untaught person will likely distort Scripture. Untaught in what? Untaught in the kerygma, the verbal tradition.

That is why knowledge of the prior kerygma is so important. For understanding the Trinity in Scripture, and for many other scriptural teachings which the verbal tradition clarifies.

 

[Lincoln7]

To affirm and confirm the kerygma.

God’s Word is not needed?? Bite your tongue.

That’s like saying that Christ’s humanity is not needed since we have Christ’s divinity.

That’s like saying reason is not needed if we have faith.

That’s like saying love is not needed if we have good works.

That’s like saying a mom is not needed if a dad is present in your life.

That’s like saying science is not needed since we have religion…

In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

PRmerger, I meant no offence I meant that to be taken in the following way;

That if the church is the rule of faith, then scripture in the life of the individual catholic is not. It is subservient to what the church says. Apologies for my lack of clarity, I admit it’s not all that clear in my post.

I will rewrite your comment and substitute another “latecomer” in the dogma department, and see if it clarifies anything about doctrinal development for you, Lincs.

But The Hypostatic Union, of Jesus having two natures, fully divine and fully human, in one person is clearly expressed in scripture: thewellrunsdeep.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/project-2-synopsis-3-hypostatic-union-r3.pdf
The Papacy and it’s infallibility is not. We can defend the orthodox view on Christ historically, we can’t do the same with the papacy.

Again, respect and regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, I meant no offence

None was taken. I was merely engaging in rhetorical questions when I posed my answer.

And the “bite your tongue” comment was not an indication of my being offended. It was more indicative of incredulity; it would have been synonymous with my saying “As if!” or “Not quite!”

 

[PRmerger]

Well, the Scriptures teach doctrine. So I think it can be extracted inasmuch as it does have a didactic purpose.

Doctrine that is extracted apart from the Faith which gave us the Scriptures is doctrine of another “gospel”.

 

[PRmerger]

That if the church is the rule of faith,

Yes…that is what the Scriptures say.

then scripture in the life of the individual catholic is not

Scripture cannot be a rule of faith, Lincs. That leads to bibliolatry.

Our rule of faith comes from Christ, not from a Book, no matter how holy.

For Catholics, the NT reflects the Christian faith, but is not the Source of it.

.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Doctrine that is extracted apart from the Faith which gave us the Scriptures is doctrine of another “gospel”.

Yes, Scripture must be interpreted through the regula fidei.

 

[Lincoln7]

Yes…that is what the Scriptures say.

Clear enough to inform the reader that Rome is the true church, but not on anything else? One must still privately interpret to reach this conclusion…

Scripture cannot be a rule of faith, Lincs. That leads to bibliolatry.

Our rule of faith comes from Christ, not from a Book, no matter how holy.

For Catholics, the NT reflects the Christian faith, but is not the Source of it.

Yes Jesus Christ has all authority (Matt 28:18), no quarrels with us here. I just contest that Scripture as the part of the living and active word of God (Heb 4:12), as God Breathed (2 Tim 3:16) is what the full and ultimate authority of Jesus Christ is excersised through. The very words of God, which the Lord was adamant could be understood by people; "But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Matt 22:29). As such they are what all doctrine must be tested too… So yes the NT is not the source of the faith, but as it is God Breathed, and witness to the earliest church, it is the standard.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

But The Hypostatic Union, of Jesus having two natures, fully divine and fully human, in one person is clearly expressed in scripture: thewellrunsdeep.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/project-2-synopsis-3-hypostatic-union-r3.pdf

Absolutely not, Lincs.

There are verses which* support* the concept of the Hypostatic Union, but to say that it is “clearly expressed in scripture” is absolutely untrue.

IOW: take the reference that has been repeated about the Bible falling into a desert and a “blank slate” reader attempts to extract doctrine from this Bible.

The Hypostatic Union will not be distilled from its pages.*

Rather, it is in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church that the Hypostatic Union can be extracted.

By reading the Bible alone? Not so much. :nope:

*And it is curious that you offer an expository (quite eloquent and well-written) on the Hypostatic Union. Why would such an explanation be necessary if it is “clearly expressed in scripture”?

 

[PRmerger]

Clear enough to inform the reader that Rome is the true church, but not on anything else? One must still privately interpret to reach this conclusion…

Okay, Lincs, then what is your private interpretation of

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Here, it appears that Scripture is quite clear about what the pillar and foundation of truth is.

[SIGN1]The Bible says that Scripture is NOT the pillar and foundation of truth[/SIGN1].

Rather,

[SIGN]The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.[/SIGN]

Is there another way that you read this verse from Timothy?

 

[mackbrislawn]

That if the church is the rule of faith, then scripture in the life of the individual catholic is not. It is subservient to what the church says.

This statement invites a number of comments; ones that I think will help illuminate things.

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? What comes first, church or scripture? Historically we see that God’s people, God’s assembly, existed first. Out of God’s people came scripture. This is true of both the Old Testament church and the New Testament church. We know that the Christian church existed prior to Christian scripture, and that Christian scripture was written by Christians to Christians.

For Catholics then, Church comes first, and from Church comes scripture. However, it seems to me that for Protestants in general it is the inverse–that they begin with scripture, and from scripture derive Church.

Anyway, in a sense it is true, for a Catholic, the Church is the rule of faith because Jesus is the ultimate rule of faith, and the Church is His body, and Jesus is its head. Since Jesus is the Word of God, the Word of God is found in His Church as well. Catholics believe in scripture because the Church tells them to.

So, yes, scripture is not the rule of faith for the individual Catholic. The Catholic does not approach scripture independently, as an individual. Catholics approach scripture as members of Christ’s church. They hear scripture read to them as members of the assembly. This is in keeping with the historical situation. Individuals did not possess copies of scripture. How then did they come to know scripture? By belonging to a group that did possess copies of scripture, and by assembling regularly to hear it read to them. Scripture was an aural experience, and experienced together as a family, not individually.

“It [scripture] is subservient to what the church says.” I’m not sure what is meant here. Certainly the church cannot overrule scripture, because scripture is part of the Church. Scripture is not subservient to the church, but it is definitely subsequent to the Church.

 

[Lincoln7]

Absolutely not, Lincs.

There are verses which support the concept of the Hypostatic Union, but to say that it is “clearly expressed in scripture” is absolutely untrue.

IOW: take the reference that has been repeated about the Bible falling into a desert and a “blank slate” reader attempts to extract doctrine from this Bible.

The Hypostatic Union will not be distilled from its pages.*

Rather, it is in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church that the Hypostatic Union can be extracted.

By reading the Bible alone? Not so much.

*And it is curious that you offer an expository (quite eloquent and well-written) on the Hypostatic Union. Why would such an explanation be necessary if it is “clearly expressed in scripture”?

It’s not untrue, it’s there; Jesus having a human and divine nature… scripture clearly shows it.
Again, not ‘no tradition’ but that this tradition must be in accord with scripture.
Why the expositiory on it? Well people still can benefit from wiser Christians opening up the scriptures for them. That’s not opposed to sola scriptura, scripture is the final authority still.

Okay, Lincs, then what is your private interpretation of

1 Timothy 3:15 - Yes the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Does this mean it’s infallible? No. It preserves and holds the truth about Jesus Christ, as such it is called as much. Look at the next verse; great indeed is the mystery, that’s what the church proclaims, that’s why it’s a pillar and foundation of truth. No quarrels really with us here I think… I just don’t think this shows the church is infallible. Also, this verse has not been infallibly defined, it’s private interpretation by all until it is, one will see it differently if it has to support a Catholic dogma.

This statement invites a number of comments; ones that I think will help illuminate things.

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? What comes first, church or scripture? Historically we see that God’s people, God’s assembly, existed first. Out of God’s people came scripture. This is true of both the Old Testament church and the New Testament church. We know that the Christian church existed prior to Christian scripture, and that Christian scripture was written by Christians to Christians.

For Catholics then, Church comes first, and from Church comes scripture. However, it seems to me that for Protestants in general it is the inverse–that they begin with scripture, and from scripture derive Church.

Anyway, in a sense it is true, for a Catholic, the Church is the rule of faith because Jesus is the ultimate rule of faith, and the Church is His body, and Jesus is its head. Since Jesus is the Word of God, the Word of God is found in His Church as well. Catholics believe in scripture because the Church tells them to.

So, yes, scripture is not the rule of faith for the individual Catholic. The Catholic does not approach scripture independently, as an individual. Catholics approach scripture as members of Christ’s church. They hear scripture read to them as members of the assembly. This is in keeping with the historical situation. Individuals did not possess copies of scripture. How then did they come to know scripture? By belonging to a group that did possess copies of scripture, and by assembling regularly to hear it read to them. Scripture was an aural experience, and experienced together as a family, not individually.

“It [scripture] is subservient to what the church says.” I’m not sure what is meant here. Certainly the church cannot overrule scripture, because scripture is part of the Church. Scripture is not subservient to the church, but it is definitely subsequent to the Church.

Again I say this as an observation; So it’s Sola Ecclesia?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not untrue, it’s there; Jesus having a human and divine nature… scripture clearly shows it.

If by “it” you mean: the HU is supported by Scripture, then, yes, we are agreed.

If by “it” you mean: the HU is clearly supported by Scripture, then, that is absolutely UNTRUE.

Your example of the expository demonstrates that** more than the Scriptures** is needed to come to the understanding of the HU.

Again, not ‘no tradition’ but that this tradition must be in accord with scripture.

Right. That is very Catholic of you to say.

And Scripture must be in accord with Tradition as well.

As the saying goes: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione–All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

1 Timothy 3:15 - Yes the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Excellent. So we are agreed that Scripture is NOT the pillar and foundation of truth, but rather the CHURCH is.

Does this mean it’s infallible?

We don’t use 1 Timothy to affirm the dogma of infallibility. See all the other verses that I gave you on the different thread from which we can affirm that the Church is infallible.

But, just a question here: if you agree that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (and you do!), then how is it that the Church can be teaching falsehoods?

Doesn’t that contradict Scripture?

It preserves and holds the truth about Jesus Christ, as such it is called as much.
Look at the next verse; great indeed is the mystery, that’s what the church proclaims, that’s why it’s a pillar and foundation of truth. No quarrels really with us here I think…

Amen!

I just don’t think this shows the church is infallible

.

Right. This verse affirms that it’s the Church and NOT THE BIBLE that serves as the pillar for truth.

Infallibility is affirmed by all those other verses.

Also, this verse has not been infallibly defined, it’s private interpretation by all until it is, one will see it differently if it has to support a Catholic dogma.

I think you are under the misapprehension that unless something has been “infallibly defined” it’s resigned to “private interpretation.”

This is not the case. We don’t obey our leaders only when they’re infallible. (See Hebrews 13:17)

Again I say this as an observation; So it’s Sola Ecclesia?

If what you mean by Sola Ecclesia is what you stated earlier (post #42) with my addendum: (given the understanding that this all occurs under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), then

 

[Lincoln7]

If by “it” you mean: the HU is supported by Scripture, then, yes, we are agreed.

If by “it” you mean: the HU is clearly supported by Scripture, then, that is absolutely UNTRUE.

Your example of the expository demonstrates that more than the Scriptures is needed to come to the understanding of the HU.

I mean the HU My point is that scripture is the infallible authority and guide though, yes people often need to be shown what’s in it, but it’s still the infallible guide, with all needed for salvation clearly taught.

Right. That is very Catholic of you to say.

And Scripture must be in accord with Tradition as well.

As the saying goes: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione–All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.

See that’s where I would disagree, I don’t seen catholic dogma apparently based on tradition in scripture at all. Nor in fact do I see certain dogmas in history/tradition… Again as an observation; I think one only sees them there because the church says they are.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

We don’t use 1 Timothy to affirm the dogma of infallibility. See all the other verses that I gave you on the different thread from which we can affirm that the Church is infallible.

But, just a question here: if you agree that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (and you do!), then how is it that the Church can be teaching falsehoods?

Doesn’t that contradict scripture?

I don’t think the verses cited prove infallibility as its presented by Rome, indeed thats just what that poster sees in those verses, to confirm to themselves that they chose the correct infallible authority to follow. (with respect )

I think you are under the misapprehension that unless something has been “infallibly defined” it’s resigned to “private interpretation.”

This is not the case. We don’t obey our leaders only when they’re infallible. (See Hebrews 13:17)

I just take issue with an authority claiming infallibility and often being told of using private interpretation, when this infallible body never does it, respectfully.

If what you mean by Sola Ecclesia is what you stated earlier (post #42) with my addendum: (given the understanding that this all occurs under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), then

Cool. I just want to know if that’s accepted as the position by Catholics.

 

[mackbrislawn]

1 Timothy 3:15 - Yes the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Does this mean it’s infallible? No. It preserves and holds the truth about Jesus Christ, as such it is called as much. Look at the next verse; great indeed is the mystery, that’s what the church proclaims, that’s why it’s a pillar and foundation of truth. No quarrels really with us here I think… I just don’t think this shows the church is infallible. Also, this verse has not been infallibly defined, it’s private interpretation by all until it is, one will see it differently if it has to support a Catholic dogma.

Again I say this as an observation; So it’s Sola Ecclesia?

I’ll start by agreeing, Sola Ecclesia? Church alone? Yes, Church alone, but a Church that is not alone!

The Church is not alone because the Church has Jesus as its head. Jesus is always with it. Jesus is the Truth and infallible. Hence Jesus’ Church supports the truth infallibily. The Church has scripture as well. The Church defined what scripture is; therefore the infallibility of scripture depends upon the infallibility of the Church.

Perhaps the word infallible is a stumbling block. I don’t like it either. Perhaps trustworthy, authoritative, guided by the Holy Spirit are other terms to use. Infallible simply means that the Holy Spirit prevents error when it becomes necessary to clarify a doctrine dogmatically. After all, how can we know what the truth is unless we are assured of the Holy Spirit in the Church? That is why the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It is through the Church we know Truth, including the truth in scripture.

 

[Lincoln7]

I’ll start by agreeing, Sola Ecclesia? Church alone? Yes, Church alone, but a Church that is not alone!

The Church is not alone because the Church has Jesus as its head. Jesus is always with it. Jesus is the Truth and infallible. Hence Jesus’ Church supports the truth infallibily. The Church has scripture as well. The Church defined what scripture is; therefore the infallibility of scripture depends upon the infallibility of the Church.

Perhaps the word infallible is a stumbling block. I don’t like it either. Perhaps trustworthy, authoritative, guided by the Holy Spirit are other terms to use. Infallible simply means that the Holy Spirit prevents error when it becomes necessary to clarify a doctrine dogmatically. After all, how can we know what the truth is unless we are assured of the Holy Spirit in the Church? That is why the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It is through the Church we know Truth, including the truth in scripture.

Of course there is no disagreement with us that the Lord is head of his church. But your post again asks the question; how do you know that Rome is that true church? It’s ok to say that Rome provides an authoritative and infallible guide and interpretation, but one still has to assume that it’s the right one to do the job. Which requires one to discern evidence and reach the conclusion, fallibly.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

See that’s where I would disagree, I don’t seen catholic dogma apparently based on tradition in scripture at all. Nor in fact do I see certain dogmas in history/tradition… Again as an observation; I think one only sees them there because the church says they are.

Well, using the JWs as an example: they have divorced themselves from the Tradition that gave them the Scriptures proclaiming the Trinity, so they come up with their own interpretations.

You have done the same. Your Protestant tradition has divorced itself from the Tradition which gave you the dogma of, say the infallibility of the Church, and thus you read the Scripture verses proffered and come up with your own interpretations.

See what happens when you read the Scriptures apart from the Faith which gave you these Scriptures? You come up with as many different ideas about what the Scriptures mean as there are belly buttons!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Well, using the JWs as an example: they have divorced themselves from the Tradition that gave them the Scriptures proclaiming the Trinity, so they come up with their own interpretations.

You have done the same. Your Protestant tradition has divorced itself from the Tradition which gave you the dogma of, say the infallibility of the Church, and thus you read the Scripture verses proffered and come up with your own interpretations.

See what happens when you read the Scriptures apart from the Faith which gave you these Scriptures? You come up with as man different ideas about what the Scriptures mean as there are belly buttons!

Question for you, then, PR. Just, for the sake of discussion, assume that Protestantism doesn’t exist. Which communion divorced itself from tradition, Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? Both church bodies claim that the Church is infallible in interpreting Scripture and tradition. Yet both have reached differing conclusions as to what those interpretations are. For the believer who is trying to find the Church that Christ founded, how does he discern whether that is East or West?

 

[PRmerger]

I just take issue with an authority claiming infallibility and often being told of using private interpretation, when this infallible body never does it, respectfully.

I am not understanding your point here. Could you please clarify?