Church authority: Scripture vs Tradition

[themonk86]

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.

Hey Mikaele, the way to see the authority of the Church is to understand that it (the Church) gets its authority from Christ who is the founder and head of the Church. The same can be said for the Bible. It was the Church who recognized, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the 72 books of the Bible were truly Inspired. So what we see in Matt 16 is not a proof text for the Churche’s authority but shows something that was already in practice because Jesus was the one who gave the Church its authority. So like other people have said on this thread, its not a circular argument but a linear. Like what happens when pure light hits a prism, you see all the different colors of the spectrum. So Christ is the pure light and the different colors (the Bible, the Church, Tradition, etc.)that are refracted are the different ways the Church shows this authority. Hope this helps. God Bless!

 

[donsnow]

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

Wow, John,

I learned something new from you.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Then it begs the question: How does ANYONE know what they are reading is truly inspired and canonical,if there is no infallible institution?

 

[CalCatholic]

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.

Hi SyCarl,
I know there is not a verse of scripture that specifically says verbatim ‘the Church is infallible’, but I think after reading these two verses, you could infer it;

**“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 4:15)
**
**“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
**
Now just as the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated verbatim in scripture, yet you believe it as a Christian because, if you put all the scripture verses together in the Bible that talk about Jesus, the Father and the Spirit, you can infer it. But the Church through these scriptures and its sacred Tradition, made an infallible doctrine through Church Councils and made the Trinity dogma. How does a Church make an infallible Church dogma if the Church itself is not infallible? The Church (The Body of Christ) is infallible, not the individual people in it.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi SyCarl,
I know there is not a verse of scripture that specifically says verbatim ‘the Church is infallible’, but I think after reading these two verses, you could infer it;

**“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 4:15)
**
**“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
**
Now just as the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated verbatim in scripture, yet you believe it as a Christian because, if you put all the scripture verses together in the Bible that talk about Jesus, the Father and the Spirit, you can infer it. But the Church through these scriptures and its sacred Tradition, made an infallible doctrine through Church Councils and made the Trinity dogma. How does a Church make an infallible Church dogma if the Church itself is not infallible? The Church (The Body of Christ) is infallible, not the individual people in it.

Likewise,if I am correct there is not a single verse where it uses the term “infinite” describing God? Does it mean God is not infinite?

 

[SyCarl]

Then it begs the question: How does ANYONE know what they are reading is truly inspired and canonical,if there is no infallible institution?

There was no established Old Testament canon when Jesus was on earth. Neither did the church fathers seem to have any problem referring to Scripture before the New Testament canon was established.

 

[SyCarl]

Hi SyCarl,
I know there is not a verse of scripture that specifically says verbatim ‘the Church is infallible’, but I think after reading these two verses, you could infer it;

**“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 4:15)
**
**“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
**
Now just as the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated verbatim in scripture, yet you believe it as a Christian because, if you put all the scripture verses together in the Bible that talk about Jesus, the Father and the Spirit, you can infer it. But the Church through these scriptures and its sacred Tradition, made an infallible doctrine through Church Councils and made the Trinity dogma. How does a Church make an infallible Church dogma if the Church itself is not infallible? The Church (The Body of Christ) is infallible, not the individual people in it.

What you mean by church depends on your own interpretation. You interpret it as referring to an institution, the Catholic Church. I interpret it as meaning to all true believers independent of what visible organization they belong to.

Something can be a pillar and support without being infallible. Cracks and fractures can appear in a foundation without harming what is being supported. God’s word is the truth.

The gates of Hades not overpowering the church does need to mean infallibility. First gates are not an offensive construct. They are defensive to keep something in or out. Hades cannot keep the dead anymore or keep the church out.

In addition, the church is not overcome as long is there is one true believer as a remnant. National or institutional Israel was not faithful but Elijah was told a faithful remnant still remained. It doesn’t mean that an institution is infallible.

The point is that a personal interpretation must be made if you are going to accept Scripture as a source showing the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

There was no established Old Testament canon when Jesus was on earth. Neither did the church fathers seem to have any problem referring to Scripture before the New Testament canon was established.

And different Jews adhered to different books when Jesus lived. How does that answer the question at hand? Precisely why the church moved towards canonization because many were referring to different books. Do you not know that in itself was an issue? If canonization was not important,then our Bibles more than likely would be thicker and contain gnostic or heretical teachings. Again,precisely why the early chruch needed to determine which books truly were inspired and orthodox.

 

[CalCatholic]

What you mean by church depends on your own interpretation. You interpret it as referring to an institution, the Catholic Church. I interpret it as meaning to all true believers independent of what visible organization they belong to.

Something can be a pillar and support without being infallible. Cracks and fractures can appear in a foundation without harming what is being supported. God’s word is the truth.

The gates of Hades not overpowering the church does need to mean infallibility. First gates are not an offensive construct. They are defensive to keep something in or out. Hades cannot keep the dead anymore or keep the church out.

In addition, the church is not overcome as long is there is one true believer as a remnant. National or institutional Israel was not faithful but Elijah was told a faithful remnant still remained. It doesn’t mean that an institution is infallible.

The point is that a personal interpretation must be made if you are going to accept Scripture as a source showing the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Sycarl, who then had the authority to assemble 27 books of Christian scriptures and call it the New Testament? What was the name of that Church? In 110 A.D.,** Ignatius of Antioch called that Church, ‘Catholic’.** Yes there were churches in Palestine, Egypt, Antioch, Asia minor, Greece and Rome, but they considered themselves part of one Church and they called it ‘Catholic’ (universal) to define their beliefs from those they considered heretical, that were popping up all around them. But it took the authority of one that one Church (the Catholic Church) to define the dogmas that most Christians denominations today take for granted as fact; the Trinity and the Incarnation.

**"{The Church} is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge…" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem)

“But should you meet with a person not yet believing the Gospel, how would you reply to him were he say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (St. Augustine)**

 

[pablope]

What you mean by church depends on your own interpretation. You interpret it as referring to an institution, the Catholic Church. I interpret it as meaning to all true believers independent of what visible organization they belong to.

The point is that a personal interpretation must be made if you are going to accept Scripture as a source showing the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Could you kindly explain what you mean by this statement? This is puzzling.

 

[donsnow]

What you mean by church depends on your own interpretation. You interpret it as referring to an institution, the Catholic Church. I interpret it as meaning to all true believers independent of what visible organization they belong to.

Something can be a pillar and support without being infallible. Cracks and fractures can appear in a foundation without harming what is being supported. God’s word is the truth.

The gates of Hades not overpowering the church does need to mean infallibility. First gates are not an offensive construct. They are defensive to keep something in or out. Hades cannot keep the dead anymore or keep the church out.

In addition, the church is not overcome as long is there is one true believer as a remnant. National or institutional Israel was not faithful but Elijah was told a faithful remnant still remained. It doesn’t mean that an institution is infallible.

The point is that a personal interpretation must be made if you are going to accept Scripture as a source showing the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Hi, Sy Carl,

I understand that the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ, past - present - and future is the the Church, as well as any earthly institution.

It seems to me, that it’s either your opinion or the teaching of your church, that the Holy Roman Catholic Church, past - present - and future, has no infallible leader. Well, our leader and savior is Jesus Christ and He was, remains and always will be infallible. He also shares that nature with a Holy Roman Catholic Pope, when the pope speaks ex cathedra. So, we do have an infallible interpretation from Jesus Christ, St. Peter, the other Apostles to this day. We have Tradition, the Magesterium, the Pope and the Holy Bible. With all that, our teachings have much more protection and authority than do protestant teachings.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Nicea325]

What you mean by church depends on your own interpretation.

And this the core of the problem. I have acknowledged many Protestants have a faulty belief of what church means.

You interpret it as referring to an institution, the Catholic Church.

Faulty assumptions. The RCC does not teach ONLY the institution is the church.

I interpret it as meaning to all true believers independent of what visible organization they belong to.

Key word: I. Another core issue with Protestanism: Individual interpretations. True believers? Elaborate on ‘true’ believers because under Protestanism there exist many flavors of what constitutes a ‘true’ believer?

Something can be a pillar and support without being infallible.

Such as…?

Cracks and fractures can appear in a foundation without harming what is being supported.

But apparently it will come down, if not corrected-right?

God’s word is the truth.

Indeed and promised to His Church.

The gates of Hades not overpowering the church does need to mean infallibility.

Really? So Christ erred by founding a fallible Church?

First gates are not an offensive construct. They are defensive to keep something in or out. Hades cannot keep the dead anymore or keep the church out.

EXACTLY! Precisely why Christ Church is INFALLIBLE: To keep something in or OUT! I do recall Jesus did state He would send the Holy Spirit?

In addition, the church is not overcome as long is there is one true believer as a remnant. National or institutional Israel was not faithful but Elijah was told a faithful remnant still remained. It doesn’t mean that an institution is infallible.

Infallibility refers to faith and morals,not impeccability.

The point is that a personal interpretation must be made if you are going to accept Scripture as a source showing the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic one can make all the personal interpretations as they freely choose;however,at the end of the day,the church is the one with the final interpretation. Again,something Protestanism lacks because there is not a key authority and it cannot be scripture because it no where teaches it is THE FINAL AUTHORITY!

 

[SyCarl]

And this the core of the problem. I have acknowledged many Protestants have a faulty belief of what church means.

Key word: I. Another core issue with Protestanism: Individual interpretations. True believers? Elaborate on ‘true’ believers because under Protestanism there exist many flavors of what constitutes a ‘true’ believer?

As a Catholic one can make all the personal interpretations as they freely choose;however,at the end of the day,the church is the one with the final interpretation. Again,something Protestanism lacks because there is not a key authority and it cannot be scripture because it no where teaches it is THE FINAL AUTHORITY!

The point I am trying to make is that everyone, including Catholics, must ultimately rely on private interpretation. Why do you believe that the Church is the final authority? Is it because the Church says it is or is it because the Bible says it is?

You cannot say the Church has the final authority unless you have first make the private interpretation that the Bible says it does. If you say the Church has the final authority because it says it does you get into circular reasoning. The Church says it has authority because the Bible says it does. The Bible says the Church has authority because the Church says that is what the Bible says.

Really? So Christ erred by founding a fallible Church?

Please do not put words into my mouth. I have never said Christ erred. That still doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is infallible.

Infallibility refers to faith and morals,not impeccability.

When I referred to Israel I was not talking about impeccability. I am talking about national Israel as the visible entity in the Old Testament. Israel as a structure or organization fell. The kingship led the people into idolatry. The priesthood was condemned. However, even though the nation had failed, there remained a faithful remnant. This is what it means to say the Church will not fail. The organizations and hierarchies can err but there will always be at least a true remnant. We may not be able to tell who it is, or be able to identify just as Elijah could not see the remnant in Israel, but we know that it exists.

Please do not think that I am condemning the Catholic Church by saying it is not infallible because I am not. No visible church is teaching nothing but the truth without at least adding something that is wrong or not needed. If you want to know what I believe the essentials are, to me they are contained in the Apostles’ Creed. This is the rule of faith as it was used in the first centuries of the Church. Even if you reject creeds, if you believe what it contains, you have the essentials.

 

[fhansen]

You cannot say the Church has the final authority unless you have first make the private interpretation that the Bible says it does. If you say the Church has the final authority because it says it does you get into circular reasoning. The Church says it has authority because the Bible says it does. The Bible says the Church has authority because the Church says that is what the Bible says.

It’s circular reasoning either way. You can’t support the bible as authoritative without subjectively deciding that it’s authoritative. Ultimately, with grace and reason we arrive at just who or what we believe to be worthy of our attention, based on the message they proclaim along with, perhaps, historical support as well. And the Catholic Church, presumably, could’ve possibly preached the same message with or without the bible.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

Actually, The Church existed for scores of years, before one word of the New Testament was ever written. And, The bible itself says that the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is not the bible, but The Church.

 

[thecone137]

Hello brother,

You cannot say the Church has the final authority unless you have first make the private interpretation that the Bible says it does. If you say the Church has the final authority because it says it does you get into circular reasoning. The Church says it has authority because the Bible says it does. The Bible says the Church has authority because the Church says that is what the Bible says.

The Church is not bound to (privately) interpret anything to declare itself the final authority, because it is guilded by the HolySpirit. Christ promised he would be with us until the end of the age, and someone just so happened to write it down on a piece of papyrus. As posted earlier, even if the Bible didn’t exist, the Church would still be here. To clear up the circular reasoning, the Church can be likened to a mapmaker and the Bible the map. The Mapmaker is authoritative with the map and yet, guided by the Holy Spirit can accurately interpret the it. Logically, this leads to the conclusion that the mapmaker is somehow unequal to or above the map, but not so. Think Trinity.

When I referred to Israel I was not talking about impeccability. I am talking about national Israel as the visible entity in the Old Testament. Israel as a structure or organization fell. The kingship led the people into idolatry. The priesthood was condemned. However, even though the nation had failed, there remained a faithful remnant. This is what it means to say the Church will not fail. The organizations and hierarchies can err but there will always be at least a true remnant. We may not be able to tell who it is, or be able to identify just as Elijah could not see the remnant in Israel, but we know that it exists.

Please do not think that I am condemning the Catholic Church by saying it is not infallible because I am not. No visible church is teaching nothing but the truth without at least adding something that is wrong or not needed. If you want to know what I believe the essentials are, to me they are contained in the Apostles’ Creed. This is the rule of faith as it was used in the first centuries of the Church. Even if you reject creeds, if you believe what it contains, you have the essentials.

Isreal was a distinct, visible nation with a visible strutcture( in some way), and your idea of a visible church may have problems. The reason I say this is unless someone apostacizes and leaves the faith of Christ completely, they will never schism. They will always belong somehow someway to the invisible church. Schism was possible in the early church and it just so happens to be in the Bible as well. The doctrine of unity must remain pure. I think it is truly a blessing that you to affirm the creed, though,

God Bless

 

[Timonator348]

This whole argument is easily solved by looking at history but I read a great article recently which mentioned to remember when talking to non Catholics there’s usually a large discrepancy between history and his story. We would not even have the Bible were it not for the Catholic Church as a matter of historical fact. It is amazing the depths I’ve heard arguments go about justification for the Protestant Canon. My favorite so far is “well God’s word is eternal so the Bible has always existed but the Church hasn’t.” Huh? God is eternal but by joining himself to human nature in the person of Jesus Christ he entered time as we humans can understand and established his authoritative Church to guard his Gospel. Peter, Paul, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John we’re all part of this one Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit inspired them to commit to writing a portion of the Tradition entrusted to them and to all the Church. Let us remember the Church preached the Gospel and baptized and spoke with the authority of Christ himself on matters of faith and morals because that is Christ sent them as the father had sent him, with full authority in heaven and on earth. To put it quite simply,

Luke 10:16 ~
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

 

[Nicea325]

The point I am trying to make is that everyone, including Catholics, must ultimately rely on private interpretation. Why do you believe that the Church is the final authority? Is it because the Church says it is or is it because the Bible says it is?

Show me the Catholic document(s) stating ultimately Catholics must rely on their OWN interpretation? Why is the church the final authority? Not because the Church says or the Bible,but because Jesus himself gave her the authority. The New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15),NOT the Bible. The Church is “the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23).

Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16),not a reference to the Bible.The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

You cannot say the Church has the final authority unless you have first make the private interpretation that the Bible says it does.

WRONG! What you are basically stating is the CANONIZED Christian Bible PRECEDES the Church? Show me from scripture Jesus left the bible BEFORE founding His church? Show me where the Bible all on its own states it is THE final authority?

If you say the Church has the final authority because it says it does you get into circular reasoning.

Wrong again, I did not say it nor did the Church,Jesus Himself did…read your Bible again.

The Church says it has authority because the Bible says it does.

Yes the Bible says it because evidently the Apostles received such an authority from Jesus BEFORE the Bible was canonized. It is you alone who wants scripture to teach something it does not.The Bible did not precede the Church, which is a false premise by so many Protestants.

The Bible says the Church has authority because the Church says that is what the Bible says.

Exactly! Because all the Bible is stating is a confirmation what was already taught ORALLY (Tradition) before LONG before anything was penned.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I have never said Christ erred. That still doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is infallible.

Not putting words in your mouth,simply providing a rebuttal according to your statements. You believe Christ founded a FALLIBLE church…based on what?

When I referred to Israel I was not talking about impeccability. I am talking about national Israel as the visible entity in the Old Testament. Israel as a structure or organization fell. The kingship led the people into idolatry. The priesthood was condemned. However, even though the nation had failed, there remained a faithful remnant. This is what it means to say the Church will not fail. The organizations and hierarchies can err but there will always be at least a true remnant. We may not be able to tell who it is, or be able to identify just as Elijah could not see the remnant in Israel, but we know that it exists.

Okay and explain how that debunks the Church Christ sanctified? Jesus never states the faithful would not committ errors or sins. Does Peter ring a bell? Judas? The other Apostles who were no where to been seen during the Passion? Does that negate and debunk Christ promise to His Church about the Holy Spirit guiding it into all truth?
(John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Please do not think that I am condemning the Catholic Church by saying it is not infallible because I am not. No visible church is teaching nothing but the truth without at least adding something that is wrong or not needed.

Name something added that is wrong? Give an example.

If you want to know what I believe the essentials are, to me they are contained in the Apostles’ Creed. This is the rule of faith as it was used in the first centuries of the Church. Even if you reject creeds, if you believe what it contains, you have the essentials.

Sorry,but the essentials constitute more than just the Nicene Creed/Apsotles Creed.

 

[inkaneer]

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.

What you propose goes against the whole deposit of what we call scripture. After all scripture does not determine what is scripture now does it? There is no inspired Table of Contents, is there? What you accept as scripture rests solely on the authority of the Catholic Church. It is the Catholoic Church that says what is inspired of God and what is not. Protestants have magnified a Catholic liturgical book into a self study guide to christianity. You have raised the scriptures above everything because that is the only thing you have. You have no Apostolic Tradition. You have no authority. What you have is a Catholic book that you pervert to your own man made traditions and you call it your interpretation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The point I am trying to make is that everyone, including Catholics, must ultimately rely on private interpretation. Why do you believe that the Church is the final authority? Is it because the Church says it is or is it because the Bible says it is?

You cannot say the Church has the final authority unless you have first make the private interpretation that the Bible says it does. If you say the Church has the final authority because it says it does you get into circular reasoning. The Church says it has authority because the Bible says it does. The Bible says the Church has authority because the Church says that is what the Bible says.

I have already demonstrated to you why your argument is false in post #9. There is no circular logic, but it is too convenient for you to ignore this, isn’t it?

Please do not put words into my mouth. I have never said Christ erred. That still doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is infallible.

Logic and the plain words of the NT require an acceptance of that fact. Perhaps you have never stopped to pull all the pieces together to see what they add up to.