Does scripture interpret scripture?

[PRmerger]

Obvously your second point is a matter of opinion.

Can you give an example of a Catholic teaching that you believe is not supported by the Scriptures?

But regarding your first point I thought the RCC teaches that Scripture is the Word of God but does not teach the same about the Magesterium and other Catholic traditions. Is that not true?

Rob

The CC teaches that **Jesus **is the Word of God and that he has revealed his word through 2 channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

We distinguish between “tradition” with a small “t”, and “Tradition” with a capital T.

Capital T tradition is the Word of God, just like Scripture. Small t tradition are customs that can change and are not part of the deposit of faith.

 

[submariner2]

The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.

If by “the edicts of the Magisterium” you mean Sacred Tradition, then we say that that, too, is the Word of God.

Now, if by “the edicts of the Magisterium” you mean the Catechism or writings offered by the Vatican, then we speak of those “edicts” as being the norm for the faith, but not the inspired Word of God.

PR,

I understand that the RCC teaches that Scripture and the presence of Christ in our lives is Sacred Tradition and the Word of God. But your answer is not clear to me. Is decisions or edicts of a Magesterim or the Pope the Word of God? I have read from Catholic scolars that it is not. Is that correct?

No, the teaching of the Magisterium can not change. The doctrines of the Church can develop and we can “fine tune” them, so to speak, but the teachings of the Church NEVER change

I thought Vatician II declared them “changeable” from epoch to epoch. It did not mention “fine tuning” so I have no idea what you mean by that. So if they are changeable then why can they not change? I am unclear on this. It seems to be saying that one teaching may not be the same at all in another epoch. Why is my understanding incorrect?

Thanks for you time on this. I study all these issues and hope to learn more. I like the facts though and not spin.

Rob

 

[PRmerger]

Not just that no, I think the catholic position vastly underestimates the intrinsic qualities the scriptures possess,

Can you tell me what “intrinsic quality” this verse possesses: “My breath is offensive to my wife”?



Now, I’m being a bit facetious here…but the point of the question is this: can you really tell, just by reading a verse, that it’s “intrinsically” Scripture?

If so, if I proffered a list of quotes would you be able to tell me if they are Scripture or not, just by their “intrinsic quality”? (Without consulting Google, of course!)

I mean in say 150 how did Ireneaus know he was reading scripture, no infallible descsion was made at this stage… do read the book

Lincs

By the testimony of the “presbyters”, or “elders”. That is, by the bishops. IOW: through Sacred Tradition.

Those writings which reflected the Oral Testimony of the bishops was discerned to be theopneustos. Those writings which contradicted the Oral Testimony (here, read “sacred tradition”) were rejected.

Again, this provides great *apologia *for your belief in Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Is decisions or edicts of a Magesterim or the Pope the Word of God? I have read from Catholic scolars that it is not. Is that correct?

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God. As is Sacred Scripture.

But, for example, the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatemby Pope JPII is not considered to be the inspired Word of God. Rather, the Church claims that the Magisterium is assisted by the Holy Spirit in proclaiming religious truths on faith and morals.

I thought Vatician II declared them “changeable” from epoch to epoch.

Could you please provide a source for this? Something that includes the word “changeable” would be helpful.

 

[PRmerger]

It did not mention “fine tuning” so I have no idea what you mean by that.

By “fine tuning” I mean creating a more defined understanding of a constant teaching of a doctrine.

Perhaps this metaphor may help:

It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 4-14 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.

 

[guanophore]

I’d say the Catholic paradigm results not in a three legged stool, but with sola eclessia. (with respect Guan)

And why do you say that?

I'm unsure how this means that the utterances of God are to be held as not above human words and authorities?

It does not, but that is my point. You don’t understand the nature of Sacred Tradition. It is the utterances of God, nto of human words or human authorities.

1 Peter 4:11
… whoever speaks, as one who utters oracles of God;

The oracles of God do not originate with men, but with the HS>

On the infallibility of scripture, I would rather link to the great champion and servant of God, Charles Spurgeon; spurgeongems.org/vols34-36/chs2013.pdf

Regards

Lincs

Yes, but our dear Charles Spurgeon anthropormiphises the Scripture, assigning them qualities that they do not posess.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

Thanks for the clarification. I was merely descibing what I had understood from other Catholics.

But the Scriptures are the Word of God and the edicts of the magesterium is not? Am I right on that? And the teaching of the Magisterium can change from one era to another?
Am I right on that also?

Rob

There are many levels of Teaching in the Church, but only ex cathedra pronouncements are considered infallible. The ordinary teaching of the magersterium, disciplines, canon laws and practices can change, even every day. Doctrines have been committed to the Church by the Apostles, and cannot change.

 

[guanophore]

PR,

Obvously your second point is a matter of opinion. But regarding your first point I thought the RCC teaches that Scripture is the Word of God but does not teach the same about the Magesterium and other Catholic traditions. Is that not true?

Rob

The definition of Sacred Tradition is that it is the Word of God that was committed to the Church by the Apostles.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

This has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

The Magesterium has the duty to protect and teach the doctrines of the faith. The teaching authority of the Church does not have the freedom to change the doctrines of Jesus. What can change through the Magesterium is how those teachings are understood and applied. For example, we have from the Apostles that abortion and contraception are grievious sins. However, the modern forms of birth control did not exist in those days, so the Magesterium can teach how the principle, unchanging and committed once for all to the Church, is applied in the modern age.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Guanophore,

I’d say the Catholic paradigm results not in a three legged stool, but with sola eclessia. (with respect Guan)

For he has saved them. I’m unsure how this means that the utterances of God are to be held as not above human words and authorities?

On the infallibility of scripture, I would rather link to the great champion and servant of God, Charles Spurgeon; spurgeongems.org/vols34-36/chs2013.pdf

Regards

Lincs

Lincs,

From the Spurgeon’s article I found this:

The like valuation of the Word of the Lord is seen in our Lord’s Apostles. They treated the ancient Scriptures as supreme in authority and supported their statements with passages from Holy Writ. The utmost degree of deference and homage is paid to the Old Testament by the writers of the New. We never find an Apostle raising a question about the degree of inspiration in this book or that. No disciple of Jesus questions the authority of the books of Moses, or of the Prophets. If you want to cavil or suspect, you find no sympathy in the teaching of Jesus, or anyone of His Apostles. The New Testament writers sit reverently down before the Old Testament and receive God’s Words as such, without any question whatever.

I have but to ask,

Who then decided to go against the Apostles and take books out of the Scriptures they used at the time?
And under what Authority?

Peace,

Jose

 

[submariner2]

PRmerger;9363749]You are stating that most Protestant scholars and Catholic scholars are in general agreement about “individual verses”?

What is the general agreement among these scholars regarding, say, John 6: 56?

What about 1 Peter 3:21?

PR,

That is a big question. I would have to go back and check the exact opinions expressed to answer that properly. But I would refer you to the book I read by Father Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT. I find it a very valuable book and seems in agreement with my church on many counts regarding history and the meaning of scipture verses. In fact Brown has instructed in Protestant seminaries which illustrates my point.

But I would say that John 6 is generally referring to our spritual nourishment and are generally eucharistic verses as your pope maintains in his book and verse 63 sums it up. In fact the popes book Introduction to Chirstianity sees that verse in the same manner as I understood him. So that supports my point also. In fact I agree with what he writes on that. It is clear to me that he respects the views of the modern bible experts and historians as I do. I read the top Catholic ones as well as others. They all seem to be saying the same thing.

Peter 3:21 simply discusses baptism.

Indeed. And these differences are manifold and have led to the chaos and confusion of tens of thousands of different denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

That there are tens of thousands of denominations is an obscenity!

It is a shame that so many have split up over differences of opinion. I am glad my church is not like that. Of course some could make the argument that many denominations is better than one over all. The real shame in my mind is that some will not accept the others as valid. I am thankful my church accepts all christians to the Lords Table of communion which is the symbol of unity in the church.

Can you share what you Scriptures you think speak to the concept of women pastors? And what “variety of opinions” are proclaimed by the Scriptures on women pastors?

Some use the Timothy letters to say a woman cannot be a pastor or even speak in church whereas Paul offers more tolerance on that issue, particularly Gal 3:28. My church accepts Pauls view and has women pastors as do most mainline protestant churches.

How do we discern whether something should be a “big deal” or not?

I think we should not be making big deals at all unless it deals directly with the Gospel message. Much of the big deals are no more than semantics and based on one point of view when scripture shows a church with varied views yet accepting of each other where excommunication is not approved.

That is, what if someone reads the Scriptures and says that he thinks that Saturday should be the day of worship and not Sunday? To him, it’s a “big deal”. To you, perhaps not so much. Now what do we do with his opinion? Do we allow him to leave the flock and form his own church? Or do we say, "Hey, if you want to worship from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, go for it.

I would say that our church meets on Sunday and is not likely to change to Saturday. He should make his choice of another church if that is what he insists upon because we are not likely to change just because of what he wants. Of course my church also meets for communion each week on another day if that satisfies him although I dont think that day is Saturday. But it is possible there is some Saturday worship somewhere that might satisfy him. I would think that we would try to satisfy him if we can.

Enjoyed the conversation. I realize there are differences of opinion.

Rob

 

[PRmerger]

But I would say that John 6 is generally referring to our spritual nourishment and are generally eucharistic verses as your pope maintains in his book and verse 63 sums it up.

There are millions (no, billions, I think!) of Christians who disagree with you here.

 

[PRmerger]

Peter 3:21 simply discusses baptism.

Yes.

And what do the Protestant scholars say about this?

Does it indeed save?
Is it required for salvation?

And, as such, should it be done using the Trinitarian formula?
By immersion or sprinkling?
In infancy or adulthood?
Is it a sacrament or an ordinance?
Should it be done in a river or a baptismal font?

Now, no need to answer the questions–they are mainly rhetorical. They serve the point of saying that Protestant scholars by no means are in agreement with this.

 

[submariner2]

PRmerger;9363762]Can you give an example of a Catholic teaching that you believe is not supported by the Scriptures?

PR,

I am happy to describe what my church teaches and why, but I prefer not to get into any general argument. Often that is based on misunderstandings anyway. However I am happy to react to any particular thing you want to offer.
Obviously as a protestant I agree with much and disagree with some. My primary interest is history and not doctrines. My church stresses Scripture and the Gospel Message for our lives and not doctrines. Catholic and protestant historians and scholars generally agree on history and the original meaning of scripture verses so its easier to discuss.

The CC teaches that **Jesus **is the Word of God and that he has revealed his word through 2 channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

We distinguish between “tradition” with a small “t”, and “Tradition” with a capital T.

Capital T tradition is the Word of God, just like Scripture. Small t tradition are customs that can change and are not part of the deposit of faith

My understanding from Vatican II is that Magesterial statements are “changeable” and so is not equal to scripture and therefore not Sacred Tradition. Is that correct? I read Father Brown to hold that view. I am trying to determine exactly what it means.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

The definition of Sacred Tradition is that it is the Word of God that was committed to the Church by the Apostles.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

This has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

The Magesterium has the duty to protect and teach the doctrines of the faith. The teaching authority of the Church does not have the freedom to change the doctrines of Jesus. What can change through the Magesterium is how those teachings are understood and applied. For example, we have from the Apostles that abortion and contraception are grievious sins. However, the modern forms of birth control did not exist in those days, so the Magesterium can teach how the principle, unchanging and committed once for all to the Church, is applied in the modern age.

Hi guano,

I generally agree with what you say. Although of course my church considers itself also as the cathlic church along with the others. We recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday.

But how can you say the apostles taught a subject to anyone when it did not even exist in those days? I can understand how you might take the principles of the apostles and apply it to the modern age but I cannot understand how you claim to have the exact teachings handed down directly.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

There are millions (no, billions, I think!) of Christians who disagree with you here.

PR,

May be so, but I have read the Pope explaination of that issue in his book, Introduction to Christianity, page 356-358 in the newer edition (there were two editions with different pages) Have you read it? He seems to agree with my church that Chirsts body in the euchairist is a spritual presence. He specifically cites John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:50 as “eucharistic verses” and central to the discussion.

Happy to hear your view of that. Perhaps I misinterpret, but he explains it so clearly and I think I understand plain english. I apprecitate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Yes.

And what do the Protestant scholars say about this?

Does it indeed save?
Is it required for salvation?

And, as such, should it be done using the Trinitarian formula?
By immersion or sprinkling?
In infancy or adulthood?
Is it a sacrament or an ordinance?
Should it be done in a river or a baptismal font?

Now, no need to answer the questions–they are mainly rhetorical. They serve the point of saying that Protestant scholars by no means are in agreement with this.

PR,

I will answer by saying that that is not surprising because of the variety of views in the NT.
Note they held a variety of views but excommunication is not shown as approved in the NT.

The view of my church is that baptism is a sign of entry into Gods Kingdom as circumcision is a sign of Jewish commitment to Gods Law.

We use the trinitarian formula and baptize infants.
Of course it is a sacrament having been instituted by Christ himself.
We sprinkle or immerse whatever the individual prefers.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

There are many levels of Teaching in the Church, but only ex cathedra pronouncements are considered infallible. The ordinary teaching of the magersterium, disciplines, canon laws and practices can change, even every day. Doctrines have been committed to the Church by the Apostles, and cannot change.

guano,

I thought the Vatican II says that the magesterial statements are “changeable” and do not distinguish between “ordinary teachings” and “doctrine.” Can you show me in the document where it makes that distinction? I cannot find it.

Also, is the “infallible” pronounment of a Pope considered to be Gods Word or equal to scripture?

Sorry to question you on that but I like to know where it is actually written rather than take someones interpretation. Thanks for helping me on this.

Rob

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi guano,

I generally agree with what you say. Although of course my church considers itself also as the cathlic church along with the others. We recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday.

But how can you say the apostles taught a subject to anyone when it did not even exist in those days? I can understand how you might take the principles of the apostles and apply it to the modern age but I cannot understand how you claim to have the exact teachings handed down directly.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

Not answering for Guano but more of seeking confirmation if I understand it correctly.

Because the Catholic Church (Like the Orthodox) has direct Apostolic succession and their teachings, which include Scripture and Tradition. That is: a direct delegation of authority from the Apostles themselves (From Jesus really).

Peace,

Jose

 

[guanophore]

It is a shame that so many have split up over differences of opinion. I am glad my church is not like that. Of course some could make the argument that many denominations is better than one over all.

Yes I am sure it grieves God. You make a good point, though, that the divisions in Christendom are related to matters of opinion. The reason the CC is One is because

The real shame in my mind is that some will not accept the others as valid. I am thankful my church accepts all christians to the Lords Table of communion which is the symbol of unity in the church.

It is essential to distuinguish the diference between accepting people as valid, while their communion may not be. All Christians as well as non-Christians are accepted as “vaild” persons, deserving of human dignity and respect, as they are created in the image and likeness of God. Non-Catholic Christians are accepted as our brothers and sisters in the Lord, though improperly joined to the One Body.

To offer communion to such a person (one who has embraced heresies) or to participate in communion with them would be false ecumenism. That would be proclaiming with our bodies that we are in unity, when we know that the unity has been wounded.

I think we should not be making big deals at all unless it deals directly with the Gospel message.

The problem with this is that Catholics have accepted the Gospel as one, whole, and indivisible garment. We are not at liberty to carve certain of the Apostolic Teachings apart from the rest, as is the habit of our separated brethren. No part of the ONE GOSPEL that was committed once for all to the Church can be added to, or subtracted from.

These days evangelicals have boiled down the Gospel to the readers digest version found in the four spiritual laws tract. For Catholics, these four spiritual laws cannot be separated from the remainder.

Much of the big deals are no more than semantics and based on one point of view when scripture shows a church with varied views yet accepting of each other where excommunication is not approved.

Yes. It is important that we work on resolving these misunderstandings so that unity can be restored in the Body. This is one of the main purposes of CAF.

 

[guanophore]

 However I am happy to react to any particular thing you want to offer.

Let’s try to stay on topic, The Catholic doctrine you believe is not a correct reflection of Scripture would be straying. The mod has already given us warning!

My understanding from Vatican II is that Magesterial statements are “changeable” and so is not equal to scripture and therefore not Sacred Tradition. Is that correct? I read Father Brown to hold that view. I am trying to determine exactly what it means.

Rob

Vaticann II was a pastoral council, and dealt primarily with how the doctrines of the faith are put into practice. Of course practices and disciplines can change, though the doctrine upon which they are based does not.

The Magesterium is the Teaching Authority put into place by Jesus. It is their duty to preserve and protect the once for all divine deposit of faith, and to instruct the faithful in how they can best live in accordance with it.