Church authority: Scripture vs Tradition

[Mikaele]

By the Church pointing to the Gospel (Matthew 16,) as its source of authority, isn’t it receiving authority and making a book authoritative at the same time? not sure if that’s put well, but it seems a bit circular to me.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[fhansen]

No, because Peter, the head of the Church, received his authority before that was written. Scripture backs up Church tradition, her own history.

 

[abucs]

Hi Mikaele,

i see your point but i think that the Church does not rely on this one source for its authority. I think it highlights this source particularly for those Christian traditions who left the Catholic Church centuries ago and who take the Bible as their primary source for authority.

If that source points to the Church as the authority then it is a good way of helping such Christian traditions to come back without any need itself to claim the Bible as the sole source of the Church’s authority.

 

[po18guy]

By the Church pointing to the Gospel (Matthew 16,) as its source of authority, isn’t it receiving authority and making a book authoritative at the same time? not sure if that’s put well, but it seems a bit circular to me.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

It is not circular, but linear, or perhaps radial. It was a process of empowerment. Once begun, it went forward (linear) or it radiated outward from its source, like the sun. It is not something that constantly refers back to itself, but which constantly proceeds.

In any case, it makes more sense than those who claim the book itself bestows power and authority. But, how can the book have authority, if it does not claim such authority, but tells of men who were given that authority?

 

[Nicea325]

By the Church pointing to the Gospel (Matthew 16,) as its source of authority, isn’t it receiving authority and making a book authoritative at the same time? not sure if that’s put well, but it seems a bit circular to me.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Nope! Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture go hand-in-hand. Problem is that many have created a false dichotomy,pitting Scripture against Tradition. It is not an either/or dichotomy,but a both/and dichotomy. It is Sacred Tradition that gave us the understanding of Scripture.

 

[Crumpy]

If you go to the EWTN.com website, there are two documents that will explain the Church’s position, or at least give you a big start in that direction.

go into the document library, and do a search for Verbum Dei. This is the absolute modern reference for scripture and tradition. You can download this document for free.

Also, in the library, search for Verbum Domini. This is absolutely a blockbuster on a statement of the role of the Bible in the Church. You will be redirected to the Vatican website. You can download the document, but give it time to load. It may be confusing because the first couple pages are blank. So, scroll down and you will find the text.

These are substantial (long) documents but, when downloaded, you can search in Verbum Dei for “tradition” and swoop right in on the statements you are really looking for.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By the Church pointing to the Gospel (Matthew 16,) as its source of authority, isn’t it receiving authority and making a book authoritative at the same time? not sure if that’s put well, but it seems a bit circular to me.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Work through this:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Crumpy]

In my previous post, I should have referred to Dei Verbum, not Verbum Dei. Sorry.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By the Church pointing to the Gospel (Matthew 16,) as its source of authority, isn’t it receiving authority and making a book authoritative at the same time? not sure if that’s put well, but it seems a bit circular to me.

Not exactly.

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Timonator348]

Several good points are made on this thread especially that of it is not Scripture vs Tradition it is Scripture AND Tradition. Two ways of revelation flowing from one divine source: God. It is also important to remember the Catholic Church is the only one that can truly claim it could exist and thrive (and did for 300 some years) without the Bible. Obviously any “Bible based” church could not exist without the Bible which they claim as their sole authority. The fact is no one that goes to other churches truly believes in the Bible alone they just are misguided by men claiming their own authority rather than the God given authority in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

 

[SyCarl]

Not exactly.

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

This argument does not solve the issue. It assumes that the Bible says that the Church is infallible. This is an interpretation that must be made. You can interpret it one way and I can interpret it another.

We are left with a book that must be interpreted. It cannot be established that the Catholic Church is the sole infallible authority with respect to the interpretation without first making that interpretation. So the Church is still saying we are the infallible authority because we say that is what the Bible says.

This is just the most glaring problem with this argument.

 

[fhansen]

This argument does not solve the issue. It assumes that the Bible says that the Church is infallible. This is an interpretation that must be made. You can interpret it one way and I can interpret it another.

We are left with a book that must be interpreted. It cannot be established that the Catholic Church is the sole infallible authority with respect to the interpretation without first making that interpretation. So the Church is still saying we are the infallible authority because we say that is what the Bible says.

This is just the most glaring problem with this argument.

The Church says she’s the final authority. The written word can only be authoritative to the extent hat it’s interpreted correctly-and all the various interpretations made by all the various interpreters at the very least proves that not just anyone can interpret it.

But at the same time the Church also says we’re not to go against our own conscience so in the end we are the final interpreters in one sense, insofar as we’re like sheep, trying to discern the true Shepard’s voice.

But if scriptural interpretations are varied and ambiguous, then how can there be any interpreters, who adhere to Sola Scriptura, that can be trusted?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This argument does not solve the issue. It assumes that the Bible says that the Church is infallible. This is an interpretation that must be made. You can interpret it one way and I can interpret it another.

We are left with a book that must be interpreted. It cannot be established that the Catholic Church is the sole infallible authority with respect to the interpretation without first making that interpretation. So the Church is still saying we are the infallible authority because we say that is what the Bible says.

This is just the most glaring problem with this argument.

To the contrary, I think the establishment of an infallible Church is one of the easiest promises of Christ to prove.

From scripture.

 

[SyCarl]

To the contrary, I think the establishment of an infallible Church is one of the easiest promises of Christ to prove.

From scripture.

I do not agree that the Bible teaches that there is infallible institution. You must first make your own interpretation as to what church means and then make the interpretation that it is infallible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not agree that the Bible teaches that there is infallible institution. You must first make your own interpretation as to what church means and then make the interpretation that it is infallible.

Can Jesus teach error?

“He who hears you hears me.”

When the Apostles taught, the audience heard truth.

The apostles were prevented from teaching error.

This is infallibility.

 

[donsnow]

This argument does not solve the issue. It assumes that the Bible says that the Church is infallible. This is an interpretation that must be made. You can interpret it one way and I can interpret it another.

We are left with a book that must be interpreted. It cannot be established that the Catholic Church is the sole infallible authority with respect to the interpretation without first making that interpretation. So the Church is still saying we are the infallible authority because we say that is what the Bible says.

This is just the most glaring problem with this argument.

Hello, SyCarl,

I respectfully disagree.

Neither you nor I have interpreted the Holy Bible. I have read it all the way through, and remember a lot of the impressions it made on me during and after that reading. I realized a lot of it I did not understand.
When I returned to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, led by the Holy Spirit to do so, then the interpretation came to me from the Church.

I think that a lot of your interpretation of the Holy Bible comes to your from the Presbyterian Church, does it not?

I find no dichotomy nor contradiction in Mr. Randy Carson’s presentation. Nowhere did my mind stop and go, “Huh” and reread a statement three times like I have reread your “… It cannot be established that the Catholic Church is the sole infallible authority with respect to the interpretation without first making that interpretation…”
First off, Jesus Christ established that the Apostles are the sole authority to interpret His word, when He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.
The fidelity of the Apostles and their disciples to Christ’s words and deeds came through the centuries to the first Church Council at Trent in 365AD, wasn’t it? All that the bishops at that council had were the written and spoken words of those Apostles and disciples.
Again, the Holy Roman Catholic Church existed before the Holy Bible. Resting on Jesus Christ’s authority to His Apostles. It is that authority of the Apostles and their disciples’ truth, love and faith which gives our Holy Bible its authority. And the Holy Spirit which carries the Holy Bible’s authority to each of us who read it.
That is to say, that the Apostle’s interpretation was carried all along by the authority given them by Christ Jesus. His authority shepherded the correct interpretation all the way to and through the Council of Trent and their assigning the canonized scriptures and the authorized interpretation to and with St. Jerome when he compiled the Vulgate Holy Bible from all those writings and the Council’s interpretations.
So, you see, the infallible interpretation was present first, from Jesus Christ Himself, through His Apostles, and their disciples to the bishops at the Council of Trent. It is Tradition, citizen, that brings Christ’s authorized interpretation to the Council which selected and canonized the sacred writings. Tradition, not scripture, brought interpretation to the scripture.
Your little circular dance with interpretation comes apart in the light of the above truth.

God loves you,
Don

 

[pablope]

I do not agree that the Bible teaches that there is infallible institution. You must first make your own interpretation as to what church means and then make the interpretation that it is infallible.

Well, for on thing, which do you think came first…the Church or the Bible? How was the Word of God spread after Pentecost?

 

[John_Colean]

Good Evening Donsnow. I concur with your comments and wanted to add a footnote that may provide some clarity.

I have had this discussion with some of my Protestant friends, who do not understand the concept of the Church’s Traditions. I point out that the Catholic Church is not an evangelical church, but rather it is an Apostolic Church, meaning that we accept and rely on the teachings from the Apostles, early Church Fathers as well as written Scripture. I then ask where does Scripture come from, i.e., the Canon of Books that we refer to as our Bible.
As you pointed out, St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate between 382 and 405. During that time, St. Jerome had to collect and review virtually all of the Scripture (gospels and letters) passages that were circulating through the Church. Purpose of this examination was to determine which letters and other passages should be included in the Latin Vulgate. The Scripture references that were eventually selected were those passages which were ”traditionally” considered to be authentic in authorship and also keeping with the generally accepted Theology that the Apostles and Church Fathers had taught. Therefore, you can say that the Scripture(s) that we have today is really based upon Tradition. And of course, the list of books that St. Jerome selected was not codified and approved by the Church Council until some years later.
Blessings to all,
John

 

[donsnow]

Good Evening Donsnow. I concur with your comments and wanted to add a footnote that may provide some clarity.

I have had this discussion with some of my Protestant friends, who do not understand the concept of the Church’s Traditions. I point out that the Catholic Church is not an evangelical church, but rather it is an Apostolic Church, meaning that we accept and rely on the teachings from the Apostles, early Church Fathers as well as written Scripture. I then ask where does Scripture come from, i.e., the Canon of Books that we refer to as our Bible.
As you pointed out, St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate between 382 and 405. During that time, St. Jerome had to collect and review virtually all of the Scripture (gospels and letters) passages that were circulating through the Church. Purpose of this examination was to determine which letters and other passages should be included in the Latin Vulgate. The Scripture references that were eventually selected were those passages which were ”traditionally” considered to be authentic in authorship and also keeping with the generally accepted Theology that the Apostles and Church Fathers had taught. Therefore, you can say that the Scripture(s) that we have today is really based upon Tradition. And of course, the list of books that St. Jerome selected was not codified and approved by the Church Council until some years later.
Blessings to all,
John

Good evening, John Colean,

Thank you, sir, for adding those details.

I guess you’re setting me straight, because I had assumed that the Council of Trent gave the codified lists of books to St. Jerome, for him to transcribe them into the Latin Vulgate. Was I wrong in that assumption, then?

God loves you,
Don

 

[John_Colean]

Yes sir, St. Jerome published the Latin Vulgate a number of years before the Canon was codified. I suspect that the research and study that St. Jerome did layed the foundation for acceptance into the Canon.

Blessings,

John