Authority of scripture vs. church

[ajac]

I’ve run into what seems to be a problem. I’ve been explaining to my protestant friend why I believe in the Church, and I said because the Bible demonstrates that there is a Church. But then when I ask why I trust the Bible, I say that it’s because the Church said it’s infallible. What is the point of Scripture if we can just know the truth through the Church? Why didn’t God just give us a list of De Fide teachings right from the beginning, that way there wouldn’t have been so many heretics. I’m confused.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

But then when I ask why I trust the Bible, I say that it’s because the Church said it’s infallible.

Where does the Church say that?

Christ left us both a Church and divinely inspired scripture. Both are necessary. There is no conflict between the two.

 

[Benadam]

Catechism Scriptures

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

 

[Reuben_J]

I’ve run into what seems to be a problem. I’ve been explaining to my protestant friend why I believe in the Church, and I said because the Bible demonstrates that there is a Church. But then when I ask why I trust the Bible, I say that it’s because the Church said it’s infallible. What is the point of Scripture if we can just know the truth through the Church? Why didn’t God just give us a list of De Fide teachings right from the beginning, that way there wouldn’t have been so many heretics. I’m confused.

You can give this a perspective. The Church stands on the three legged stool of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture (Bible) and the Magisterium (Teaching Office).

You will see that the Bible is one of the legs of the three legged stool. The proper word to describe the Bible is inerrant, rather than infallible.

The usage of the Bible in the context of the Church, is that it must be understood through the Sacred Tradition and explained in the Magisterium, if applicable.

Each does not stand alone but in compliment to each other, and thus constitutes the riches of the Church.

God bless.

 

[promethian_rule]

But then when I ask why I trust the Bible, I say that it’s because the Church said it’s infallible. What is the point of Scripture if we can just know the truth through the Church?

Would you ask the same question of why a history teacher, who can obviously teach a class free from a textbook, uses a history text and readings to instruct? No, because the text is a teaching tool by which the teacher enhances and improves their teaching.

The church is the one that was given teaching authority, and under that authority with and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, promulgated the scriptures as a teaching tool of the church. I think where you’re erring is in trying to separate the two, as though God gave us the Church with her authority and separately gave us the bible as a separate and independent authority. God gave us both together in giving the church teaching authority: a Magisterium which manifests its teachings in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

 

[Lost4words]

I like this reply. Very well said and makes me think. Thank you

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank you.

 

[Seagull]

But then when - they - ask why I trust the Bible,
I say that it’s because the Church said it’s infallible.
What is the point of Scripture …

Protestant friends asked you that question? - lol

 

[angel12]

Why didn’t God just give us a list of De Fide teachings right from the beginning, that way there wouldn’t have been so many heretics

What makes you think there wouldn’t have still been heretics?

 

[BlackFriar]

This is a fairly meaningless paragraph if you analyse it closely.

 

[Benadam]

As any kind of proof of Church or Scriptural authority, yeah I agree. Is that what you mean?

 

[BlackFriar]

the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

This is a compromise paragraph, as many subtle Magisterial statements are, to placate warring traditions without fully agreeing with either side.

In this case it tells us that God put into the Bible “non erroneous salvation truths”. It doesn’t tell us how to distinguish these truths from other errors that may be in the Bible.

Was the truth of Geocentric stories in the Bible necessary for salvation? The Cardinals and theologians who condemned Galileo clearly thought so…and only finally admitted they got that bit wrong late last century.

 

[Genesis315]

It only seems to be ambiguous if you cut off the part you cut off, which says that “all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit inspired it all, and He doesn’t inspire error.

“[F]or the same of our salvation” is the reason why God inspired the scriptures–it doesn’t limit the extent of inspiration. God did not do anything superfluously.

There really isn’t any ambiguity, but if there were, the sources cited in the footnotes for this passage in Dei Verbum make it abundantly clear.

The Church, on the other hand, would limit her own infallibility to truths of faith–ie truths that cannot be known with certainty with natural reason, but only through revelation–and morals.

 

[BlackFriar]

Lots of things get “affirmed” in the Bible (not that its clear what “affirmed” actually means) … but the point at issue is which affirmations are inerrant. Only those necessary for our salvation it seems.

I don’t think its rocket science.

 

[steve-b]

I’ve run into what seems to be a problem. I’ve been explaining to my protestant friend why I believe in the Church, and I said because the Bible demonstrates that there is a Church. But then when I ask why I trust the Bible, I say that it’s because the Church said it’s infallible.

Actually the Church says the bible is inerrant.

ajac:

What is the point of Scripture if we can just know the truth through the Church? Why didn’t God just give us a list of De Fide teachings right from the beginning, that way there wouldn’t have been so many heretics. I’m confused.

Good question

For the first almost 400 yrs, we had the Catholic Church, but we didn’t have a bible. That’s because there was no closed canon of scripture. We had a canon, but it wasn’t considered closed. Historically, note who gave us that canon Muratorian Canon ~170 a.d. the authority of “Catholic Church” in determining the canon

When the Catholic Church gave us a closed canon (73 books, 27 NT books + 46 OT books) THEN we had a bible. From Pope Damasus I , Council of Rome 382 a.d.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sadly Scripture alone is not enough. You can go very different if you rely on it alone, without going back to the past when it all started, why and how it was understood.

 

[steve-b]

I’m always placing my hope, faith, and authority in the scriptures above all else.

Yet we wouldn’t have the scriptures if it wasn’t for the Church and the authority of the Church. The NT was written in, by, AND for, the Catholic Church. AND The Church was called the Catholic Church and that was put into writing, before all the NT books were written. And we make it a profession of faith, in mass, that we believe in One Holy Catholic and apostolic Church