Does scripture interpret scripture?

[PRmerger]

. But historians teach they were not formal clergy as we think of today, since there was no separation of layman and clergy until near the 3rd century.

Rob

What you mean, Rob, is that the “separation” was not **formalized **until the 3rd century. That it existed from the time of Christ to his Apostles is apparent.

You can’t argue that and then argue that the Trinity was taught by the Apostles at the same time, Rob.

For the dogma of the Trinity was not** formalized** until the 4th century.

Of course, you and I and every other Christian proclaim that the dogma of the Trinity was in existence from the moment of Jesus’ kerygma.

We just know that when something is formalized is not a testament to its incipience.

 

[submariner2]

Ah, so if he indeed means “any statement” by the Magisterium, then that, is indeed true that *some *“statements” by the Magisterium are indeed changeable.

But if he means doctrines and dogmas as being changeable, then of course, the answer is NO, doctrines and dogmas do not change. Our understandings of the dogma may have evolved and been “fine-tuned”, but changed? Never.

PR,

Here is his quote again.

“The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that its past Magesterial statments have
been enunciated in ‘the changeable conceptions of a given epoch.’
Note 9 - Mysterium ecclesiae, a declaration of the Roman Doctrinal Congregation
(1973).
Note 10 - Theologically the Bible outranks the magesterial statments (since no one
claims they are the word of God)”
Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

That sounds to me like ALL statements. But I cannot read minds. All I can do is provide his quote.

Rob

 

[GaryTaylor]

Raymond E.Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Page 5. Imprimatur.

Rob have you read his work? Father Brown firmly believed in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and also states this in his work. There is a thread here somewhere, which I believe if you google Father Raymond Brown it should come up.

There are many Biblical scholars, Fr William Most is a great alternative to Fr Brown, Father Mitch Pacwa who speaks highly of Fr Browns work. On and on. Yet they don’t supercede the teaching authority of the church.

Father Malichi Martin was another Biblical Scholar who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls was a personal aide to John XXIII and Pius XII read the Third Secret of Fatima, taught at the Pontifical Biblical School, Exorcist for decades in NYC. His teaching doesn’t superceed the Church.

Pope Paul VI was a bonifide “genuis”. Why do you suppose its so difficult 50-years later to find fault with his work? Pope Benedict who is one of the top theologians alive today is a firm believer in V-II thus Pope Paul VI. That it what he defends with LG. That is the Constitution of the Catholic Church.

Father Brown does not supercede this. Nor did Fr Martin nor will anyone ever who comes along. Including Calvin, Luther, Wesley and all the rest. The Magesterium takes on the task of discerning the fidelity of all matters in regard to the tradition of Apostolic Faith. Which btw as mentioned Fr Brown agree’d with.

How does Fr Brown compare to St Jerome? Does the Bible contain errors? If so why wouldn’t you follow a Sacred Tradition which does not contain error like Fr Brown did?

If we are to agree with Fr Brown then why wouldn’t we agree with Fr Martin and deem Medjugorje a hoax and evil? How are we to discern what is in fact correct and what is fiction and what needs to be discerned? Rush ahead and consecrate Russia which Fr Martin insisted never happened? Being a leading authority thus a “expert” on the supernatural I would say he knew what he was talking about.

Or should we follow the teaching authority of the Church?

If the Bible contains error as Fr Brown definately believed where does that leave those who follow Scripture as its sole authority? I’d say in trouble.

Heres Fr Most in his dialogue regarding Fr Brown.

geocities.com/Athens/7273/crisissc.htm

At the end of the day it still comes back to the teaching authority of the Church.

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

That sounds to me like ALL statements.

Do you see the word “all” there? :nope:

But I cannot read minds. All I can do is provide his quote.

Rob

Thankfully, we have the entire context of 2000 years of (unchangeable) Catholic teaching so we do not need to read minds.

Now, Magisterial “statements” such as, “You must abstain from meat on all Fridays!”* do *change. That’s because they’re disciplinary, not doctrinal.

The doctrine has remained unchanged from the mouth of the Apostles to the hearts and minds of their successors, our bishops, over 2000 years.

 

[GKC]

Do you see the word “all” there? :nope:

Thankfully, we have the entire context of 2000 years of (unchangeable) Catholic teaching so we do not need to read minds.

Now, Magisterial “statements” such as, “You must abstain from meat on all Fridays!”* do *change. That’s because they’re disciplinary, not doctrinal.

The doctrine has remained unchanged from the mouth of the Apostles to the hearts and minds of their successors, our bishops, over 2000 years.

It does help to understand the differences amongst dogma and doctrine and discipline.

Also helps to understand the concept of degrees of theological certainty.

GKC

 

[submariner2]

Rob have you read his work? Father Brown firmly believed in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and also states this in his work. There is a thread here somewhere, which I believe if you google Father Raymond Brown it should come up.

Gary,

Yes I have the book and have read it. It is excellent.

There are many Biblical scholars, Fr William Most is a great alternative to Fr Brown, Father Mitch Pacwa who speaks highly of Fr Browns work. On and on. Yet they don’t supercede the teaching authority of the church.

Neither does Brown. Why do you assume that?

How does Fr Brown compare to St Jerome? Does the Bible contain errors? If so why wouldn’t you follow a Sacred Tradition which does not contain error like Fr Brown did?

Fr. Browns book was approved with the Imprimature. What is your point? I dont know why you bring up Jerome. He said the Deuterocanicals were aporcrypha and not suitable for doctrine which veiwpoint the Catholic church rejected at Trent.

If the Bible contains error as Fr Brown definately believed where does that leave those who follow Scripture as its sole authority? I’d say in trouble.

Not at all. Scripture is not a history book or a science book. It however leads us inerrantly to the Gospell message and what we need to know for salvation. What is wrong with that point of view?

At the end of the day it still comes back to the teaching authority of the Church.

Fr. Brown does not violate that. All of his 30+ books were approved with the Imprimature which means it does NOT violate that teaching authority. So what are you talking about?

Rob

 

[mackbrislawn]

=submariner2;9383359

mack,

I see no reason why not Catholic bishops are no less valid than those of my church… It depends on if they take on the tasks of the apostles and I presume they do just as the bishops of my church. I have great admiration for some of your bishops.

Okay.

I am not sure what your comment on presbyter-bishops means. I think that they were leaders of a christian gathering according to the historians I have read.

Yes, they would be leaders, but the question is, how did they get to be leaders? Did they take on the task on their own initiative, or was it because of some kind of divine appointment?

They also took on the tasks of the apostles in leading their christian congregation. But historians teach they were not formal clergy as we think of today, since there was no separation of layman and clergy until near the 3rd century.

Yes, some historians say that, but I don’t know why, nor do I know what they mean by formal clergy. I consider it their opinion. Because in scripture it is evident that there was already a clergy/ laity distinction, even if they weren’t called that. 2Peter 5:1-5 makes this clear. It is one elder writing to fellow elders, telling them to tend the flock of God that is their charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in their charge, but being examples to the flock. Peter says those that are younger be subject to the elders.

Paul says to Timothy–I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and teaching. The “clergy” had duties in regard to the “laity.” 1Timothy 4:11-16 further explains these duties and how Timothy had hands laid on him.

1Timothy 3 lays down the offices of overseer, elder and deacon quite formally. And 1Timothy 5:17 says to let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor.
22 says not to be hasty in the laying on of hands.

Clearly an elder/flock separation, or as we say today, clergy/laity. Paul appointed elders, so the initial appointment of elders and overseers was done by an apostle. These overseers in turn, according to scripture, appointed others. This is apostolic succession.

The idea is that overseers and elders cannot appoint themselves, but must have been appointed by a previous overseer, and so back to the apostles themselves.

 

[submariner2]

Do you see the word “all” there? :nope:

Thankfully, we have the entire context of 2000 years of (unchangeable) Catholic teaching so we do not need to read minds.

Now, Magisterial “statements” such as, “You must abstain from meat on all Fridays!”* do *change. That’s because they’re disciplinary, not doctrinal.

The doctrine has remained unchanged from the mouth of the Apostles to the hearts and minds of their successors, our bishops, over 2000 years.

PR,

I fully get your opinion on the matter. Yet the ME document does not make that distinction for the term “changeable” and neither does Fr. Brown.

Rob

 

[Lochias]

PR,

I fully get your opinion on the matter. Yet the ME document does not make that distinction for the term “changeable” and neither does Fr. Brown.

Rob

I’ll try again.

I don’t see how you can maintain these views in light of how we Catholics treat the Host. We go to Eucharistic Adoration; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? We avoid letting the Host touch the ground; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? There have been verified Eucharistic miracles in which the Host turned to actual flesh of a human heart, and is still preserved thusly today; why would this happen if Christ was only spiritually present?

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I fully get your opinion on the matter. Yet the ME document** does not make that distinction **for the term “changeable” and neither does Fr. Brown.

Rob

Exactly.

You have, curiously, inserted the word “all” into the excerpt.

It is not present.

As such, it is true that some Magisterial statements are indeed changeable.

But doctrine and dogmas do not change.

Unless you can provide an example of a doctrine or dogma that has changed?

The Catholic faith was whole and entire, Rob, before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. It was given once for all to the saints. And it has persisted for 2000 years.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the difference between doctrine, dogmas and discipline? And also how canon law fits into all of this?

 

[GKC]

Exactly.

You have, curiously, inserted the word “all” into the excerpt.

It is not present.

As such, it is true that some Magisterial statements are indeed changeable.

But doctrine and dogmas do not change.

Unless you can provide an example of a doctrine or dogma that has changed?

The Catholic faith was whole and entire, Rob, before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. It was given once for all to the saints. And it has persisted for 2000 years.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the difference between doctrine, dogmas and discipline? And also how canon law fits into all of this?

That last would be my guess.

GKC

 

[submariner2]

Exactly.

You have, curiously, inserted the word “all” into the excerpt.

It is not present.

As such, it is true that some Magisterial statements are indeed changeable.

But doctrine and dogmas do not change.

Unless you can provide an example of a doctrine or dogma that has changed?

The Catholic faith was whole and entire, Rob, before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. It was given once for all to the saints. And it has persisted for 2000 years.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the difference between doctrine, dogmas and discipline? And also how canon law fits into all of this?

PR,

You asked my opinion of what the phrase means for magesterial statements to be changeable. I gave it. I do not intend to get into an arguement about the difference between doctrines and teachings, etc etc. That paragraph does not distinguish on what in a magesterial statment is changeable so I must presume it means anything in such a statment is changeable.

I realize your opinion is it means only fine tuning even though the paragraph does not say that. People have the right to disagree. I respect your opinion even though my common sense does not agree.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

I’ll try again.

I don’t see how you can maintain these views in light of how we Catholics treat the Host. We go to Eucharistic Adoration; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? We avoid letting the Host touch the ground; why would we do that if Christ was only spiritually present? There have been verified Eucharistic miracles in which the Host turned to actual flesh of a human heart, and is still preserved thusly today; why would this happen if Christ was only spiritually present?

lochias,

I go by your CCC which does not teach othewise than spritual. All its adjectives are consistent with spritual presence and do not specify a physical or literal presence.
Neither does the pope in his book Introduction to Christianity. In fact he specifies a spritual presence, So I can agree with the desciptions given.

Regarding those miracles, please excuse me for having my doubts.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

I see that he affirms that the Church had already formalized ordination from as early as the 3rd century.

That’s even earlier than the Bible you use was put together by the successors of these men.

PR,

The NT was completed in the first century.

And even earlier than the Trinity that you believe in was formalized by the successors of these men.

That was in the 4th century.

So not sure what you are saying here in reference to the 3rd century.

What I am saying is there was no ordination in the NT or prier to the 3rd century as Fr.Brown explains.

Are you saying that the Trinity is a new concept from the 4th century on, if that’s your argument for ordination?

No. Trinity was taught in the bible but not named. It has nothing to do with ordination. My point is what Brown says. There was no ordination in the NT. There was no layman/clergy distinction in the NT.

Rob

 

[pablope]

PR,

What I am saying is there was no ordination in the NT or prier to the 3rd century as Fr.Brown explains.

Rob

Here is the quote from Fr. Brown that you provided in another thread…I think you have a misreading of what Fr. Brown said:

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

What Fr. Brown is saying…there was a selection/ordination process already in place…but the practice varied from place to place…until the Church “developed a regularized pattern”…that after the 3rd century…the manner of selection was the same all through out…after the Church promulgated the pattern to be followed by all.

So, how can the Church develop and regularize a pattern if none existed before?

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

You asked my opinion of what the phrase means for magesterial statements to be changeable.

Could you please provide the post where I did this?

Thanks.

(Or is this another example of your making a claim that cannot be backed up?)

To wit:

Originally Posted by submariner2
And I have heard many Catholics even on this forum say that the eucharist is not a physical presence of Christ. I suspect you have a minority opinion

Note to new readers: this claim was asked to be substantiated and submariner2 was not able to provide even 10 different Catholics on this forum making the claim that the Eucharist was not a physical* presence of Christ.

Take “physical” to mean: truly and substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[PRmerger]

Fr. Browns book was approved with the Imprimature.

Fr. Brown does not violate that. All of his 30+ books were approved with the Imprimature which means it does NOT violate that teaching authority. So what are you talking about?

It’s “Imprimatur”, friend.

 

[PRmerger]

The NT was completed in the first century.

Exactly.

Just like the concept of priestly ordination.

You see how you cannot have it both ways? You cannot say one thing being formalized in later centuries (such as the NT) is present in the first century…

without also acknowledging that another thing formalized in later centuries (such as priestly ordination) was present in the first century as well.

 

[PRmerger]

What I am saying is there was no ordination in the NT or prier to the 3rd century as Fr.Brown explains.

Then you have to acknowledge that there was no Trinity prior to the 4th century.

And no NT prior to the 4th century.

Which is it, Rob?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jerome.said the Deuterocanicals were aporcrypha and not suitable for doctrine which veiwpoint the Catholic church rejected at Trent.

Rob

It is a “Myth” the Catholic Church “added” these seven books to the Bible at Trent.

Jerome included the Deuterocanicals in his Vulgate, whatever he thought I would have to read in the original context and language. Do you have this? If so I would like to read this, apparently he changed his mind?

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I.

The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393

The Council of Carthage in 397

In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible,

all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965). “EWTN” Should you care to read more in depth.

BTW who was it in history who “removed” the Deuterocanicals? Right, and that would require… One Guess. And why? One Guess?

Do have another history of the Bible and Deuterocanicals? Perhaps I missed what your saying? Your above statement isn’t historical at all.

Father Brown I spoke on. I’m glad you have a high regard for him, no need to reiterate. I don’t place his teaching above the teaching authority of the CC. He doesn’t either. In fact he mentions this many times. Basically my point.