P
pablope
Guest
Who canonzied the OT to be part of scripture, of the Bible as you know it today?
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
The Magisterium was never given authority over the OT, or the holy Bible, as others have pointed out! It is its servant! The Catholic Church’s Magisterium of course exercises the authority when it defines dogmas (The Trinity for example, embraced by most Christians) and proposes truths contained in divine Revelation (sacred scripture).
CCC - “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith…The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them.”
Another question I could not answer as a former non-catholic:
Who exercises the authority, given to them by Christ, to propose truths contained within the pages of sacred scripture, within the Protestant sphere?
S
srtc10
Guest
Sorry guys but I don’t have the time to answer 6 different people and every avenue they are trying to go down. I will do the best I can with the time that I have.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
By all means take your time. Please read through the responses.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a good question. As I am sure you are aware, the Word of God enjoins us to judge with “right” judgment (the mind of Christ).
How is this “mind of Christ” given to the Church? Jesus showed the disciples how to understand the OT:
Luke 24:27
7 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
The Apostles committed this to their successors, the Bishops:
2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.
The teaching authority, and the mind of Christ, resides in the One Church, founded by Christ. The Holy Spirit protects this once for all deposit of faith.
Matt 28:18-20
“**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Whenevery we see a “therefore” in Scripture, we need to look and see what it is there for.
This “therefore” is a reference back to the premise upon which the following actions is based. The Apostles are commissioned with the authority of Christ. They exercise this authority to build up the Church.
Titus 2:15
5 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
So to answer your question the teaching authority put in place by Christ is exercised authoritatively over the Scriptures, which come from the same Source.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is well said. It has been described as a three legged stool. Such a stool would not work if the legs were not equal!
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by “authoritative over” it. Jesus Himself is the Word of God. He has authority. He sent the Apostles with HIs own authority. The authority is to rightly teach how the OT talks about Jesus.
Do you do this on the basis of I Tim 3:16? I think it is clear that passage does not say what you are saying.
And to ignore the passage in Ephesians that clearly indicates the responsibility for equipping the saints belongs to those PERSONS God has called and gifted to perform that duty (in which the Scriptures are useful).
This seems like an absurd assertion. Why would you even suggest such a thing? All of salvation history begins and ends in God. The whole of the Scriptures point to Christ, and it is how they do so that the Church is authorized to teach and preach.
Paul is writing of the OT when he makes this statement to Timothy:
2 Tim 3:14-15
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
The OT by itself, before any of the NT was ever written, was able to instruct the faithful unto salvation through faith in Christ. It is this understanding of the OT Scriptures that the Church was given authorative commission.
Do you mean to say that you do not see the Church acting authoritatively in these passages? Do you not see how the Word of God is interpreted and applied “with all authority” to the faithful?
I don’t think srtc is trolling, but it is quite possible that she does not know that Jesus is completely united with HIs Church. While admitting that God is sovereign over the Scripture, she may not realize that Jesus identifies Himself with His Holy Bride.
You are quite right, srtc. The Magesterium is not eternal, because it is something that is only needed until the perfect is come, which is Christ. When He comes to take His Bride there will no longer be any need for any teaching authority on earth.
Still it is puzzling what you might mean by 'authority over the OT". It seems the Scriptures are clear that Jesus taught the apostles how to authoritatively teach from the OT, and that they passed this on to their successors, the Bishops.
J
joe370
Guest
:yup: Hey Guanophore. From the very beginning we see a structure of ordination (in the NT) so that truth can be passed on from one generation of leaders to the next, and we see this taking place during the apostolic age within the Catholic Church. Pretty cool! The purpose of apostolic succession (pretty obvious and necessary, considering mankind’s penchant for division and chaos): the preservation of doctrinal truth e.g. Paul said to Timothy: “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” That’s three generations of apostolic succession, beginning with an apostle - Paul’s generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation of his successors. They certainly understood the importance of ordination via the laying on of hands in order to faithfully preserve doctrinal truth. Of course God get’s all the credit for said preservation.This is a good question. As I am sure you are aware, the Word of God enjoins us to judge with “right” judgment (the mind of Christ).
How is this “mind of Christ” given to the Church? Jesus showed the disciples how to understand the OT:
Luke 24:27
7 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
The Apostles committed this to their successors, the Bishops:
2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.
The teaching authority, and the mind of Christ, resides in the One Church, founded by Christ. The Holy Spirit protects this once for all deposit of faith.
Matt 28:18-20
“**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Whenevery we see a “therefore” in Scripture, we need to look and see what it is there for.
This “therefore” is a reference back to the premise upon which the following actions is based. The Apostles are commissioned with the authority of Christ. They exercise this authority to build up the Church.
Titus 2:15
5 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
So to answer your question the teaching authority put in place by Christ is exercised authoritatively over the Scriptures, which come from the same Source.
Notice that Paul did not entrust his teachings to the many witnesses…just certain faithful men who were to do the same…
J
joe370
Guest
I respectfully ask: did you mean to word it this way?
Jesus’ established Catholic Church, like everything else on this side of eternity, will eventually fade away forever, giving way to a boundless, immeasurable, ecstatic and eternal existence with the Holy Trinity, our blessed mother Mary and all of the saints. Phew…So exciting when you stop and think about it::heaven:Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”
S
srtc10
Guest
I understand the OT to be the beginning of time until the arrival of John the Baptist, the last OT prophet. I don’t want to get into a discussion about the Apocrypha. All the books in my Bible are ones that you agree are in the canon, so let’s stay in that realm.
I was not so much concerned with the authority the OT holds; rather I’m interested in the how the RCC does or does not define what it means. My question was based on how logical it is for an entity in the NT era (the Magisterium) to define what was written before it existed. I can see how it’s logical for you to believe that about what came after it, but not before.
Guanophore made a very accurate statement in his reply. He said “The OT by itself, before any of the NT was ever written, was able to instruct the faithful unto salvation through faith in Christ.” He hit on the point I was leading up to. People in the OT were able to discern what the OT Scriptures were saying without the Magisterium to define it. Those OT Scriptures were able to teach the gospel to those people and lead them to salvation. And no Magisterium in sight. The gospel was proclaimed in the OT and there was no need for a Magisterium to help them understand it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I find this position curious.
If we are to understand your argument correctly, the logical conclusion would be that there, indeed, would be no necessity for a Magisterium, but that would also mean that your position argues against the necessity of a New Testament.
Is that what you are saying?
If not, you cannot argue against the need for a Magisterium without destroying the need for a NT as well.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Your question had to do with authority, for you to say that you were not so much concerned about the authority the OT holds is not a truthful statement, go back and read your posts.
People in the Old Testament were not able to discern the Scriptures without the Prophets and the Levite Priests. They were the Old Testament version of what the Magisterium is today. There was no such thing as “me and the Bible” have the authority and I can interpret it however I want to. On the contrary, the OT law was very strict.
If the people of the OT were so incredibly gifted in the OT interpretation how did so many of them missed the references to Jesus and why would Jesus say this:
[bibledrb]John 5:39[/bibledrb]
In short, No - you were not going after interpretation - you challenged the authority of the Magisterium given to them by Christ himself. Don’t try to make it something else now.
J
joe370
Guest
Even when faced with certain hypocritical and less-than stellar leaders, as per Jesus:
“So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”
J
joe370
Guest
S
srtc10
Guest
I have to go out of state for the weekend on business. I will have to pick it up on Monday.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
By this post, it clearly shows that you do not believe in Scripture having the sole and final authority. That post you gave is a tradition of the Protestant movement so therefore you also give their tradition authority in your life on matters of faith and morals and their belief on how to be a good Christian. As a Catholic, I believe the Apostles rather than some disgruntled priest.
I will take what Christ said over Luther or Calvin.
J
jrtrent
Guest
I like this definition from Theopedia, “The authority of the Bible refers to the idea that the Bible is normative for the church in all speech, thought, and practice. In other words, Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians in all matters of faith and practice.”
I wonder if people read too much into the words “sole and final authority,” particularly the word sole. The idea isn’t that there is no other source of information from which to make decisions, but that, like the definition above states, that scripture is normative, is something you cannot go against. I believe Baptist writers are known more than other Protestants for employing phraseology like “sole and only,” yet their own confessions speak of other legitimate sources for developing Christian practice.
The London Baptist Confession of faith starts its chapter on the Holy Scriptures by saying, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,” yet it goes on to say, “the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable.” Later in the chapter, the confession also says, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture . . . Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
So not everything a Christian individual or church does need be lifted directly from scripture, but scripture must be normative, nothing may be done that is against scripture. “The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture. . .”
I wonder how far apart Protestants and Catholics are in this regard. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures had written:
I don’t think most Protestants are saying any more than Cyril did with respect to the authority of the scriptures in their churches.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, yes and no.
The problem arises when there’s dispute about whether a particular practice is indeed “against Scripture”.
Who decides if altar calls are against Scripture?
Who decides if praying the rosary is against Scripture?
Who decides if divorce and re-marriage is against Scripture?
Who decides if priestesses are against Scripture?
Who decides if a wedding on a beach is against Scripture?
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Jr…you are speaking or typing lol from one Protestant view. Many denominations believe that if it is not in scripture then it is incorrect. Sadly that view is not in scripture either. I suspect you have never met a southern baptist preacher from Mississippi.
- Status