Does scripture interpret scripture?

[Lochias]

Infallibly? No. But the Magisterium has given us the lens through which we are to understand these verses.

And, as I am certain you know, it is not a requirement that Catholics only believe that which the Church has declared infallibly.

This, thank you PR.

 

[po18guy]

Scripture tells us that it needs authoritative interpretation, both in the Old Testament as well as in the new. In Nehemiah 8:5-8, we see that God appointed those with authority to interpret so that the people could understand the scriptures.

In Acts 8:26-39, we see that Phillip was sent by an angel to interpret to the Ethiopian eunuch. Phillip, who had the authority, then preached the Gospel to the eunuch, who could not understand Isaiah unless it was explained to him.

If scripture interprets scripture, why did Peter caution that the “ignorant and unstable” twisted the scriptures? (2 Peter 3:16)

If scripture interprets scripture, then the devil was correct in his temptation of Christ. (Matthew 4:5-6)

If scripture interprets scripture, why is there so much protestant disagreement, using the exact same bible?

Clearly, God intends someone with authority to interpret His Word. As to that authority…

Consider the oft-cited Bereans (Acts 17:10-11), who searched the scriptures. There is no way on earth that they could have searched any scripture and come to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. It was only after hearing Paul’s authoritative preaching that they confirmed what they heard by then searching the Old Testament. Paul preached via the oral Apostolic Tradition (paradosis).

Again, read the prolugue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4). Theo;philus learned absolutely nothing, zip, zero, nada from Luke’s Gospel. Luke tells us very clearly that he wrote it only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophlus had already received - via the oral Apostolic Tradition (paradosis).

 

[Lincoln7]

We know what the Church has proclaimed regarding the gift of tongues here:

It is not an infallible teaching, but binding nonetheless.

I think that you are under the misapprehension that Catholics are only bound to assent to teachings that have been infallibly defined.

This is not correct.

Indeed they are not. My statement was in response to the classic “but that’s just your private interpretation” argument.

As the magisterium rarely if ever interprets scripture with this infallibility it claims, I find the argument telling Protestants that they need an infallible guide and their arguments are just private interpretations to not quite hold water…

Rather if one were to say “we have an infallible guide, which we then use when looking at scripture, we still go by private interpretation when we read scripture, we just know what the truth on a matter is already, which helps us to ponder a particular scriptural passages meaning.” then I would see that as a better position to claim…

The whole “that’s your private interpretation” argument usually ends discussions, and implies Catholics have a binding and proper interpretation of a passage, if they don’t however, as I’ve said, it seems better to say something sort of like the above…

I hope this sort of makes sense and does not sound aggressive or personal

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

Scripture tells us that it needs authoritative interpretation, both in the Old Testament as well as in the new. In Nehemiah 8:5-8, we see that God appointed those with authority to interpret so that the people could understand the scriptures.

In Acts 8:26-39, we see that Phillip was sent by an angel to interpret to the Ethiopian eunuch. Phillip, who had the authority, then preached the Gospel to the eunuch, who could not understand Isaiah unless it was explained to him.

If scripture interprets scripture, why did Peter caution that the “ignorant and unstable” twisted the scriptures? (2 Peter 3:16)

If scripture interprets scripture, then the devil was correct in his temptation of Christ. (Matthew 4:5-6)

If scripture interprets scripture, why is there so much protestant disagreement, using the exact same bible?

Clearly, God intends someone with authority to interpret His Word. As to that authority…

Consider the oft-cited Bereans (Acts 17:10-11), who searched the scriptures. There is no way on earth that they could have searched any scripture and come to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. It was only after hearing Paul’s authoritative preaching that they confirmed what they heard by then searching the Old Testament. Paul preached via the oral Apostolic Tradition (paradosis).

Again, read the prolugue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4). Theo;philus learned absolutely nothing, zip, zero, nada from Luke’s Gospel. Luke tells us very clearly that he wrote it only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophlus had already received - via the oral Apostolic Tradition (paradosis).

Apostolic oral preaching is no issue for sola scriptura… Indeed our position is seems this oral preaching was committed to writing, it carries more weight than anything else in matters of doctrine! It’s not ony apostolic, and “he who hears you hears me…” would thus apply in this case, but is also and far more importantly God breathed, and as such partakes of His authority. Hence the position we give to it as the rule of faith.

Are you not interpreting scripture with scripture in your post, my friend?

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed they are not. My statement was in response to the classic “but that’s just your private interpretation” argument.

As the magisterium rarely if ever interprets scripture with this infallibility it claims, I find the argument telling Protestants that they need an infallible guide and their arguments are just private interpretations to not quite hold water…

Rather if one were to say “we have an infallible guide, which we then use when looking at scripture, we still go by private interpretation when we read scripture, we just know what the truth on a matter is already, which helps us to ponder a particular scriptural passages meaning.” then I would see that as a better position to claim…

The whole “that’s your private interpretation” argument usually ends discussions, and implies Catholics have a binding and proper interpretation of a passage, if they don’t however, as I’ve said, it seems better to say something sort of like the above…

I hope this sort of makes sense and does not sound aggressive or personal

Kind regards

Lincs

Just take the “infallible” out of this, Lincs, because it is a red herring. We have already established that we don’t follow the Church’s interpretations only when she declares something infallibly.

The Church, as the guardian and authentic interpreter of Scripture, offers Christians the correct way to view God’s Word.

Without an authentic interpreter, we are left with tens of thousands* of differing interpretations, which is an OBSCENITY, and in this the author of lies rejoices.

Thanks to this paradigm “I don’t need no authority to tell me what the Bible says” we now have the chaos and confusion of millions of Bible readers who now don’t know whether, just to take a few examples:

• divorce and re-marriage is adultery
• baptism saves
• Sunday is the day of worship
• we will be raptured
• we can lose our salvation
• the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ

and on and on and on and on.

Thanks to the Church, we know that yes, divorce and re-marriage is adultery. Baptism does save. Sunday is the day of worship…etc etc etc.

Even if she hasn’t spoken infallibly on those matters, we have the assurance that she has provided us with the correct guidance on these verses.

*if you have a different number, Lincs, I will consider using it. Please provide your source.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed our position is seems this oral preaching was committed to writing, it carries more weight than anything else in matters of doctrine!

Bible verse for this “position” that the apostle’s written preaching carries more weight than anything else, please, Lincs!

This is a curious position to me. If I heard St. Paul preach, whether it was written or orally, I would hang on EVERY WORD, not just the words that I read.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 19:8[/BIBLEDRB]

That is proof that not everything that the apostles proclaimed was written down, for who could have written everything Paul preached orally for 3 months?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not ony apostolic, and **“he who hears you hears me…” **would thus apply in this case,

Heh.

Don’t you think that, in light of the word “hears”, this is exactly the opposite of your position, Lincs?

Your position would be better served if Christ had said, “He who reads you reads me.”

Rather, this is confirmation of Sacred Tradition–that which the Christians HEARD, they knew came from Christ.

 

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

Bible verse for this “position” that the apostle’s written preaching carries more weight than anything else, please, Lincs!

I don’t claim there is one… No Protestant who adheres to Sola Scriptura does… It’s a hermanutical principle, not a doctrine.

This is a curious position to me. If I heard St. Paul preach, whether it was written or orally, I would hang on EVERY WORD, not just the words that I read.

That is proof that not everything that the apostles proclaimed was written down, for who could have written everything Paul preached orally for 3 months?

I will leave my opinion of what Paul is saying out here, but if there is this Scred Tradition, we ask to be shown it… Show us the first and second century Christians who preserved papal infallibility, who preserved the medieval understanding of purgatory, of Mary as co redemptrix and mediatrix… Are these actually traditions, or later developments, unheard of by the Apostles? Genuine questions, no aggression inteneded PR

Re: Does scripture interpret scripture?
Originally Posted by Lincoln7
“It’s not ony apostolic, and “he who hears you hears me…” would thus apply in this case,”
Heh.

Don’t you think that, in light of the word “hears”, this is exactly the opposite of your position, Lincs?

Your position would be better served if Christ had said, “He who reads you reads me.”

Rather, this is confirmation of Sacred Tradition–that which the Christians HEARD, they knew came from Christ.

Indeed it does, I don’t debate apostolic Traditon, I simply don’t think that the catholic understanding of tradition is all tht clear… Partim partim, which you seem to endorse… Material sufficiency? It’s not a clear cut thing. My position is that all essentials for salvation are clearly expressed in scripture, plain for all to see…

Kind regards PR

Lincs.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hola Lincs

I tend to use said term to describe a Protestant who adheres to a historic confession, e.g. 39 Articles, Westminster confession of faith, Heidelberg catechism, Formula of Concord…

The Westminster Confessions… Do you know they are responsible for my return to the RCC? lol, meaning this really honest brother, no ill-intent. For me, their 1st Chapter is completely illogical to me

I asked this questions to many Protestant theologians and Pastors, many who are my friends and I love and esteem much. If I may, I would like to ask you the same.

How did the Holy Spirit help the Reformers discern the books of the Apocrypha as not being inspired by Him? Please note I said the Holy Spirit.
When and Whom did the Holy Spirit reveal the current Protestant Canon and how exactly did the Holy Spirit explain that His Church used the wrong Canon for over 1,000 years?

Quite so, forgive my misunderstanding Does one not have to use it in discerning Traditon as well? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t discount the tradition, far from it. Nor did the reformers, my copy of The Institutes for example, has countless patristic citations.

Brother, every single time any one of us claims a truth from Scriptures we make a claim of infalibility, whether we realize it or not. We claim a truth from Scripture, which we understand to be inerrant; therefore, as a claim of truth (and there has to be only one truth) we claim infallibility based on Scriptures.

Now the Church went a step further and explain what She claims falls into infallibility. Everything else is authoritative, whether it directly falls into Apostolic Tradition or Church tradition. Notice big T and small t please.

Indeed I’m sure some do hold as much a view… I don’t though, nor did the reformers. As a Protestant, I don’t wish to jettison the wisdom of the fathers, but rather, return to them, as they were in the early church.

Out of curiosity, what do you understand Scriptures mean about the power to bind and lose given to the Apostles?

Thanks brother, it is a pleasure to exchange posts with you.

God Bless you,

Jose

 

[Lincoln7]

Hola Lincs

Hola, Jose!

The Westminster Confessions… Do you know they are responsible for my return to the RCC? lol, meaning this really honest brother, no ill-intent. For me, their 1st Chapter is completely illogical to me

I take no offence. I find them to be a simple summary of Protestant reformed belief; in essence, “these are the scriptures, they plainy state all that is needed for salvation, they are the authority for matters of doctrine, and scripture is the interpreter of scripture.”

How did the Holy Spirit help the Reformers discern the books of the Apocrypha as not being inspired by Him? Please note I said the Holy Spirit.
When and Whom did the Holy Spirit reveal the current Protestant Canon and how exactly did the Holy Spirit explain that His Church used the wrong Canon for over 1,000 years?

Before giving an utterly direct answer, I must first take note of the basis on which it stands; your claim to a universally accepted canon prior to the reformation, something which cannot be demonstrated historically. The East and West have differing canons, even Catholics at the time of the reformation had differing opinions on canon to the modern CC; to quote Cardinal Cajetan, displaying a pre Trent wholly acceptable opinion of canon -

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

(1 - footnote for this at end.)

As such I don’t think the reforms are guided into a change that no one else adhered too, they stand with many noted Catholic scholars of their day.

Now the Church went a step further and explain what She claims falls into infallibility. Everything else is authoritative, whether it directly falls into Apostolic Tradition or Church tradition. Notice big T and small t please.

I shall keep in mind big T and little t. However both seem very fluid to me, with big T seemingly changing upon pronouncements of new dogmas for the faithful.

Out of curiosity, what do you understand Scriptures mean about the power to bind and lose given to the Apostles?

I would refer to Institutes, book 4th, chapters 11 & 12 for a detailed explanation of it, as it encompasses a lot - m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xii.html
It covers church disciplne for me, the power to proclaim ones sins forgiven upon repentance, and not forgiven to the unrepentant… But please see the link for a more ‘authoritiative’ view on it than my own

Thanks brother, it is a pleasure to exchange posts with you.

Indeed, thanks for the respectful posts.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Footnotes
1 - books.google.co.uk/books?id=PhYXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA48&dq=Yet,+they+may+be+called+canonical,+that+is,+in+the+nature+of+a+rule+for+the+edification&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Yet%2C%20they%20may%20be%20called%20canonical%2C%20that%20is%2C%20in%20the%20nature%20of%20a%20rule%20for%20the%20edification&f=false

 

[JustaServant]

I think that we also need the Church Fathers, Tradition and the Magesterium. My friend thinks that all we need is the bible. So to what extent does scripture interpret scripture or does it?

I listen to Michael Voris and I thought that in one of his talks, and I can’t remember which one, he said that scripture does not interpret scripture. I hope that I am not miss-speaking here but I thought that is what he said.

Thanks
Phyllo

Catholics are free to interpret the Bible any way we like, provided we do not stray outside Catholic teaching.
The Church outlines a particular methodology to be used in interpreting ALL of Scripture.

1. We must always view Scripture as a whole, in the context of the whole. There is a unity that exists in all of Scripture to the point that any part of Scripture contains all of Scripture, even if we don’t see it ourselves.
2. We must always interpret Scripture in light of Holy Tradition. There is never anything in either that is contradictory to the other. If you find something you think is a contradiction, you are in error.
3. We must always interpret Scripture through the analysis of the faith as taught by the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope & the bishops united to him).

Even Protestants do not truly believe in scriptures interpret scriptures. Because if they did there would be no point in having Pastors/teachers.

 

[Phyllo]

Thank you one and all
God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

I don’t claim there is one… No Protestant who adheres to Sola Scriptura does… It’s a hermanutical principle, not a doctrine.

That seems rather convenient, doesn’t it, with all due respect?

You proclaim some concept regarding your faith, you cannot find this concept in Scripture, but claim it doesn’t have to be found there because it’s a “hermeneutic principle”.

I would guess that you wouldn’t allow Catholics to use this excuse, would you? If you claim that taught by Catholicism cannot be found in Scripture, can we say, “It doesn’t have to be because it’s a hermeneutic principle”?

Take, praying to the saints? Can we say it doesn’t have to be found in Scripture (just for the sake of argument here, because, of course it is found all over the Bible) because it’s a hermeneutic principle?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t claim there is one… No Protestant who adheres to Sola Scriptura does… It’s a hermanutical principle, not a doctrine.

I want to say that I am impressed by this recent shift on the Sola Scriptura matter. When I was frequenting Protestant circles, I was taught this “hermeneutic principle” as a doctrine. I think that Evangelicals have now realized that it is indefensible as a doctrine of the faith, and so it has been recategorized so as to be more palatable.

…but if there is this Scred Tradition, we ask to be shown it… Show us the first and second century Christians who preserved papal infallibility, who preserved the medieval understanding of purgatory, of Mary as co redemptrix and mediatrix… Are these actually traditions, or later developments, unheard of by the Apostles? Genuine questions…

Let’s stick to the topic of scripture interpreting scripture, shall we? There is plenty of Sacred Tradition to support that Scripture needs to be understood in the light of all other Scripture, and that no interpretation should occur apart from the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

It seems odd to read the phrase “if there is Sacred Tradition”, when you are using as a foundation stone of your position the most well known article of Sacred Tradition in the world, the New Testament. The NT was created by and through Sacred Tradition, and cannot be separated from it.

Indeed it does, I don’t debate apostolic Traditon,

Oh but you are! You are rejecting the Apostolic Tradition that lies outside of the Holy Scripture, and you deny that the Sacred Tradition produced the Scriptures.

I simply don’t think that the catholic understanding of tradition is all tht clear… Partim partim, which you seem to endorse… Material sufficiency? It’s not a clear cut thing.

I can see why people have difficulty with the clarity. Especially persons such as yourself who have been separated from Sacred Tradition in an ecclesial divide for over 500 years.

My position is that all essentials for salvation are clearly expressed in scripture, plain for all to see…

If that were true, then Jesus would not have needed to found a Church, would He?

I happen to agree with you about the essentials of salvation being clear in scripture. I also find them plain, however, I read scripture through the lens of sacred tradition, which means that I interpret it with the faith of the Apostles that preached and wrote. Others, such as yourself, interpret what they read in separation from that Tradition, so you come up with different understandings of the text.

The ultimate flaw in the premise indicated in the title is that interpretation/hermeneutics is an activity /endeavor that requires a person with a mind. The writings, however Holy, are not persons.

Now the one who espouses the doctrine of SS will say to me “but the HS is the person who interprets”, with which I cannot disagree, however, the HS will not lead one faithful believer in the opposite direction of another, which demonstrates that faithful Christians of good will, seeking the guidance of the HS end up in opposite camps not because of the HS but because of the human side of the equation. Humans interpret based upon their experience and education (or lack of it) so they understand what they read and hear differently.

 

[Lincoln7]

That seems rather convenient, doesn’t it, with all due respect?

You proclaim some concept regarding your faith, you cannot find this concept in Scripture, but claim it doesn’t have to be found there because it’s a “hermeneutic principle”.

I would guess that you wouldn’t allow Catholics to use this excuse, would you? If you claim that taught by Catholicism cannot be found in Scripture, can we say, “It doesn’t have to be because it’s a hermeneutic principle”?

Take, praying to the saints? Can we say it doesn’t have to be found in Scripture (just for the sake of argument here, because, of course it is found all over the Bible) because it’s a hermeneutic principle?

No? That’s how it’s always been seen.

If we must find verses, as I’ve posted countless times, there are the Lords holding the Pharisees teachings and traditions to scripture, that which is God Breathed. David’s comments on it being a lamp unto his feet, the message from Paul telling people to not go beyond what is written, Johns comment on his gospel giving what is needed for salvation, Luke’s comment on his Gospel being written to maintain the truth of what Theophilus heard orally… It’s all based on the nature of what scripture is, and of course, is a reaction to the catholic system in which the magisterium interpreting claimed apostolic tradition is at the top.

I don’t think your argument works though, with respect PR as always. A hermanutical principle is rather different from a doctrine. The hermanutical principle in question is all about reaching conclusions on doctrines. We hold things accountable to the scriptures, unless youre claiming we hold the principle that all things must be accountable to the scriptures accountable to the scriptures? Which would be a bit confusing, and seems a bit contradictory.

So my answer is not an excuse no, its simply how we approach the text of scripture.

Kind Regards

Lincs.

 

[guanophore]

I must first take note of the basis on which it stands; your claim to a universally accepted canon prior to the reformation, something which cannot be demonstrated historically. The East and West have differing canons, even Catholics at the time of the reformation had differing opinions on canon to the modern CC; to quote Cardinal Cajetan, displaying a pre Trent wholly acceptable opinion of canon -

I challenge you to find any bible in existence prior to the Reformation that does not have the same canon.

As such I don't think the reforms are guided into a change that no one else adhered too, they stand with many noted Catholic scholars of their day.

Fortunately for all of us, Catholic Scholars, nor any other scholars, determine the movement of the HS. That charge is given to the Apostles, and their successors. Through this method, the Church is preserved from error.

I shall keep in mind big T and little t. However both seem very fluid to me, with big T seemingly changing upon pronouncements of new dogmas for the faithful.

It seems you are unclear about the nature of dogma. A dogma is an official pronouncement of a doctrine of the faith that has been held since the time of the Apostles. A dogma is not necessary until heresy and confusion arise, such as the problems with the canon of Scripture. Trent did not invent a canon, but made an official pronouncement on the canon that had been passed down to us from the Apostles (the Septuagint). The councils did not invent the doctrine of the hypostatic union or the Trinity (another dogmatic term you won’t find in your Bible). They pronounced what the Church has definitively and continuously held.

Sacred Tradition is the teaching of the Aposltes that is kept infallibly within the Church. One element of that ST is that the Scripture does not interpret itself, but requires a person to interpret it. Books and other inanimate objects do not engage in higher hermeneutical functions in relation to Holy Scripture. Another element is that, since Sacred Scripture is produced by Sacred Tradition, they two have the same Source (the Holy Spirit) and therefore cannot contradict one another. And a third is that the Scripture must be understood in the light of the teaching of the Church, so that it is not misunderstood. It has to do with another hermeneutic principle called context. Ancient writngs must be understood from the context in which they were produced. The context of the New Testament is the Church, who wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized it. As such,t here is nothing in it that is contrary to the Teachings of the Apostles in the Church.

I would refer to Institutes, book 4th, chapters 11 & 12 for a detailed explanation of it, as it encompasses a lot - m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xii.html
It covers church disciplne for me, the power to proclaim ones sins forgiven upon repentance, and not forgiven to the unrepentant… But please see the link for a more ‘authoritiative’ view on it than my own

I am glad to see that you understand the notion of binding and loosing in terms of church governance and discipline. It is, indeed, the power to legislate. Unfortunately, that power exists authentically only with those who are the successors of the apostles, from which Calvin separated himself.

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

Let’s stick to the topic of scripture interpreting scripture, shall we? There is plenty of Sacred Tradition to support that Scripture needs to be understood in the light of all other Scripture, and that no interpretation should occur apart from the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

It seems odd to read the phrase “if there is Sacred Tradition”, when you are using as a foundation stone of your position the most well known article of Sacred Tradition in the world, the New Testament. The NT was created by and through Sacred Tradition, and cannot be separated from it.

I’m glad we agree scripture must be looked at in light of other scripture. We do disagree on the whole infallibility bit though…

If I have been unclear, I apologise. I see Scripture as the written form of sacred Traditon, I debate whether there exists essential teachings outside of the written form of sacred traditon.

Oh but you are! You are rejecting the Apostolic Tradition that lies outside of the Holy Scripture, and you deny that the Sacred Tradition produced the Scriptures.

Partim partim? I think I give my view on the second part of this sentence above.

I can see why people have difficulty with the clarity. Especially persons such as yourself who have been separated from Sacred Tradition in an ecclesial divide for over 500 years.

Depends on the Traditon… Divided from sacred Apostlic Traditon not found in scripture, or man made traditions?

If that were true, then Jesus would not have needed to found a Church, would He?

I happen to agree with you about the essentials of salvation being clear in scripture. I also find them plain, however, I read scripture through the lens of sacred tradition, which means that I interpret it with the faith of the Apostles that preached and wrote. Others, such as yourself, interpret what they read in separation from that Tradition, so you come up with different understandings of the text.

The ultimate flaw in the premise indicated in the title is that interpretation/hermeneutics is an activity /endeavor that requires a person with a mind. The writings, however Holy, are not persons.

Now the one who espouses the doctrine of SS will say to me “but the HS is the person who interprets”, with which I cannot disagree, however, the HS will not lead one faithful believer in the opposite direction of another, which demonstrates that faithful Christians of good will, seeking the guidance of the HS end up in opposite camps not because of the HS but because of the human side of the equation. Humans interpret based upon their experience and education (or lack of it) so they understand what they read and hear differently.

Your assumption here is that modern “Traditons” in the CC are actually apostolic ones…

But yes you’re quite right, the scripture interpreting scripture idea does require a person, but again, it’s really a way Protestants approach scripture, we look for the clear to help discern the unclear…

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

I challenge you to find any bible in existence prior to the Reformation that does not have the same canon.

Indeed Luthers bible also contained them… My point is I see a distinction between the apocrypha and the scriptures, following Catejan, Jerome and the reformers.

Fortunately for all of us, Catholic Scholars, nor any other scholars, determine the movement of the HS. That charge is given to the Apostles, and their successors. Through this method, the Church is preserved from error.

So we agree that Luther stood quite happily in the scholarly world of his day, he didn’t change what everyone else agreed on in terms of canon?

It seems you are unclear about the nature of dogma. A dogma is an official pronouncement of a doctrine of the faith that has been held since the time of the Apostles. A dogma is not necessary until heresy and confusion arise, such as the problems with the canon of Scripture. Trent did not invent a canon, but made an official pronouncement on the canon that had been passed down to us from the Apostles (the Septuagint). The councils did not invent the doctrine of the hypostatic union or the Trinity (another dogmatic term you won’t find in your Bible). They pronounced what the Church has definitively and continuously held.

Sacred Tradition is the teaching of the Aposltes that is kept infallibly within the Church. One element of that ST is that the Scripture does not interpret itself, but requires a person to interpret it. Books and other inanimate objects do not engage in higher hermeneutical functions in relation to Holy Scripture. Another element is that, since Sacred Scripture is produced by Sacred Tradition, they two have the same Source (the Holy Spirit) and therefore cannot contradict one another. And a third is that the Scripture must be understood in the light of the teaching of the Church, so that it is not misunderstood. It has to do with another hermeneutic principle called context. Ancient writngs must be understood from the context in which they were produced. The context of the New Testament is the Church, who wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized it. As such,t here is nothing in it that is contrary to the Teachings of the Apostles in the Church.

And papal infallibility in all of this, as a case study?

I am glad to see that you understand the notion of binding and loosing in terms of church governance and discipline. It is, indeed, the power to legislate. Unfortunately, that power exists authentically only with those who are the successors of the apostles, from which Calvin separated himself.

We disagree on successors… For me it’s more about following apostolic teaching than standing in an apparent line to them.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

No sarcasm or aggression intended, if any appears in my posts.

Kind regards

Lincs,

 

[guanophore]

No? That's how it's always been seen.

In your lifetime? In fact, this is false. It was not seen this way until the Reformers separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition. The Reformers experienced the successors of the Apostles as corrupt persons (and some of them were!) and wanted to be free from their authority, so they created another authority for themselves, Sola Scriptura. In practice, this made every person who reads the scripture their own Pope. They did not get rid of people interpreting scripture, they just substituted themselves for the Apostolic Succession. If you read Luther and Calvin’s writings about those who disagreed with their interpretation, you can see that they both believed they had the proper hermeneutic (even though they came out opposite on some things).

If we must find verses, as I’ve posted countless times, there are the Lords holding the Pharisees teachings and traditions to scripture, that which is God Breathed. David’s comments on it being a lamp unto his feet, the message from Paul telling people to not go beyond what is written, Johns comment on his gospel giving what is needed for salvation, Luke’s comment on his Gospel being written to maintain the truth of what Theophilus heard orally.

The Catholic Church has always taught that the Scripture is authorative, and that all these values are contained in it. Yet it was never meant to exist in separation from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

It’s all based on the nature of what scripture is, and of course, is a reaction to the catholic system in which the magisterium interpreting claimed apostolic tradition is at the top.

Yes, Catholics and Protestants agree that scripture is inerrant and inspired. What protestants add to that is “infallible”. That is where things get off track. Fallibility requires a person, and the possiblity of making a mistake. Since the Holy Writings are not persons, they are not capable of making mistakes that only persons can make. The Holy Writings do not act in ways that fallible persons do, requiring acts of the will and discernment. The Holy Writings do not have “will” and therefore, cannot be fallible or infallible.

 A hermanutical principle is rather different from a doctrine. The hermanutical principle in question is all about reaching conclusions on doctrines. We hold things accountable to the scriptures, unless youre claiming we hold the principle that all things must be accountable to the scriptures accountable to the scriptures? Which would be a bit confusing, and seems a bit contradictory.

I can see your point. One has to wonder also how you might define a doctrine. Clearly you are making a doctrinal statement “it is the nature of the Scripture”. I think all Evangelical Protestants would affirm that the Scriptures are inerrant and inspired, since they say these things about themselves.

Yet these same Scriptures direct that disputes should be brought “to the Church”, not “to the Scriptures”. You are right, the Scriptures cannot perform accountability, because it is an activity that requires a person, not writings, however Sacred.

it is simply how we approach the text of scripture.

Yes, but it is a method that was not used until the Reformation. It was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles, and never espoused by the Church founded by Christ. It is a fundamental principle of churches founded by men, during the Reformation.