How sufficient does the CC deem the Scriptures?

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I know the CC teaches that Scripture is sufficient, the question is, to what extent?

As an example: Scripture gives us a model for prayer. I know the Bible doesn’t explicity condemn saying prayers to angels, saints, etc., but if Scripture is sufficient, then it’s guide to prayer (in this instance) should be sufficient, no? So, why would we look to pray to anyone other than the Father?

I can think of many other practices and teachings like this that seem to go beyond what is sufficiently layed out in Scripture.

Thanks

 

[dylanschrader]

What do you mean by “sufficient”?

For instance, the Council of Sens (Paris) in 1528 said:

There is no doubt that Scripture covers a vast field of religious doctrines and expounds them with ineffable profundity. It is nevertheless a pernicious error to think that nothing has to be accepted that is not expressed in Scripture; indeed many things have come from Christ through the apostles to later generations and have been transmitted from mouth to mouth by familiar discourse. All these must be held with unshakable conviction, even though they are not contained explicitly in Sacred Scripture.

The Church does teach things which Catholics have to believe and which are not explicitly found in Scripture. E.g., the Assumption, the canon of Scripture itself, etc.

 

[VociMike]

Hospital food is entirely sufficient to live indefinitely. All jokes aside, there’s nothing bad about it, only good. But there’s so much more to be had, enjoyed, savored, appreciated.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I definately have a mental block with this and I’m trying to understand…

Scripture itself says it is “sufficient”.

Council of Sens (Paris) in 1528 said:

There is no doubt that Scripture covers a vast field of religious doctrines and expounds them with ineffable profundity. It is nevertheless a pernicious error to think that nothing has to be accepted that is not expressed in Scripture; indeed many things have come from Christ through the apostles to later generations and have been transmitted from mouth to mouth by familiar discourse. All these must be held with unshakable conviction, even though they are not contained explicitly in Sacred Scripture.

The Church does teach things which Catholics have to believe and which are not explicitly found in Scripture. E.g., the Assumption, the canon of Scripture itself, etc.

Ok, but since the church deemed certain apostolic writings to be canon (a rule of measure), and since Scripture even declares itself to be “sufficient”, why should we accept things outside of it?

I suppose the teachings of the church (canon law - theres that word “canon” again) are on par with Scripture then? Why not just add them to the Bible then? I’m sincerely asking, not trying to be wise…

Thanks

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Hospital food is entirely sufficient to live indefinitely. All jokes aside, there’s nothing bad about it, only good. But there’s so much more to be had, enjoyed, savored, appreciated.

But isn’t it like saying “here’s a ruler, but only one person in the world can use it properly” ???

 

[1ke]

You are mistaken. I recommend you review the Catechism paragraphs 26 – 141 regarding Church teaching on Scripture.

The Church does not teach “scripture is sufficient”. The Church teaches scripture is inspired and scripture is inerrant.

The Church teaches that both Scripture and Tradition are means of Divine Revelation. Both Scripture and Tradition compose the Deposit of Faith.

Moreover, Scripture itself does not clame to be “sufficient”.

The Scripture verse 2 Tim 3:16 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (NIV)

Other bible versions render “useful” as “profitable”. None render it as “sufficient”.

This verse does not say Scripture is *sufficient *for teaching nor does it say only scripture is profitable or useful for teaching.

 

[dylanschrader]

I definately have a mental block with this and I’m trying to understand…

Scripture itself says it is “sufficient”.

Ok, but since the church deemed certain apostolic writings to be canon (a rule of measure), and since Scripture even declares itself to be “sufficient”, why should we accept things outside of it?

I suppose the teachings of the church (canon law - theres that word “canon” again) are on par with Scripture then? Why not just add them to the Bible then? I’m sincerely asking, not trying to be wise…

Thanks

Canon law isn’t doctrinal; it’s disciplinary.

The Church can’t add things to the Bible because the Bible was authored under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Dogmatic declarations are not inspired. They are prevented from being erroneous, but that’s a little different.

For a good presentation of what the Church believes about divine Revelation, read Dei Verbum. It can be found online.

Where does Scripture say it’s sufficient? (Note, that’s a genuine question. I’m not saying it doesn’t say that, but I’d like to see what the context is.)

Even from the earliest times, the teachings of Christ as entrusted to the apostles were handed down by word of mouth. Some were also written down in the New Testament.

Why did Jesus tell the apostles to go and teach rather than writing a book himself? Tradition predates the New Testament.

 

[I_Leatherman]

You are mistaken. I recommend you review the Catechism paragraphs 26 – 141 regarding Church teaching on Scripture.

The Church does not teach “scripture is sufficient”. The Church teaches scripture is inspired and scripture is inerrant.

The Church teaches that both Scripture and Tradition are means of Divine Revelation. Both Scripture and Tradition compose the Deposit of Faith.

Moreover, Scripture itself does not clame to be “sufficient”.

The Scripture verse 2 Tim 3:16 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (NIV)

Other bible versions render “useful” as “profitable”. None render it as “sufficient”.

This verse does not say Scripture is *sufficient *for teaching nor does it say only scripture is profitable or useful for teaching.

And the Scripture they were talking about were probably just parts of our Old Testament…
If those Scriptures are all anyone needs why bother with the New Testament - the Gospels, epistles, Paul goes out the window - he was’nt in the Old Testament, nether was Jesus Christ by name for that matter…

 

[m134e5]

I know the CC teaches that Scripture is sufficient, the question is, to what extent?

As an example: Scripture gives us a model for prayer. I know the Bible doesn’t explicity condemn saying prayers to angels, saints, etc., but if Scripture is sufficient, then it’s guide to prayer (in this instance) should be sufficient, no? So, why would we look to pray to anyone other than the Father?

I can think of many other practices and teachings like this that seem to go beyond what is sufficiently layed out in Scripture.

Thanks

The Scriptures, with Tradition, are what we need. Do you really think that everything about the Father and everything about the life of Jesus (and those close to him) is summed up in the Bible? The Catholic Church decided what books were going to go in the bible- so it makes sense that if you trust the authority of the Bible, you’d trust the authority of the Church that said what books go in it and what books don’t.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Canon law isn’t doctrinal; it’s disciplinary.

The Church can’t add things to the Bible because the Bible was authored under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Dogmatic declarations are not inspired. They are prevented from being erroneous, but that’s a little different.

For a good presentation of what the Church believes about divine Revelation, read Dei Verbum. It can be found online.

Where does Scripture say it’s sufficient? (Note, that’s a genuine question. I’m not saying it doesn’t say that, but I’d like to see what the context is.)

It’s a difference in wording. 2 Tim 3:16 in the KJV says “sufficient”. I don’t know if that’s an accurate translation for whatever Greek word was used originally. It seems to me that “profitable” and “sufficient”, although not meaning the same thing, in the context of the actual scripture, convey the same meaning.

Scripture + Tradition is confusing to me b/c I’ve heard many different things about the use of scripture in the church. (I will read Dei Verbum…). I guess I’ve been taught that scripture was above tradition or something like that. I have definately been taught that Scripture is sufficient or at least I may have just drawn this conclusion wrongly somewhere along the lines.

Bear with my density…

The whole idea of making the Apostles’ writings “canon” is bizarre to me unless it is going to be THE “rule of measure”/"canon. Isn’t canonizing something raising it up and saying “this is the ideal”?

 

[Brendan]

Ok, but since the church deemed certain apostolic writings to be canon (a rule of measure), and since Scripture even declares itself to be “sufficient”, why should we accept things outside of it?

But Scripture doesn’t say that is it formally sufficent, rather that it is “able to make you wise unto Salvation”, even then it doesn’t even say that Scripture is the ONLY thing that will do that, only that Scripture CAN do that.

In addition, Scripture itself teaches that it is not formally sufficent, that we have to hold to all that was both written AND taught orally.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The Scriptures, with Tradition, are what we need. Do you really think that everything about the Father and everything about the life of Jesus (and those close to him) is summed up in the Bible? The Catholic Church decided what books were going to go in the bible- so it makes sense that if you trust the authority of the Bible, you’d trust the authority of the Church that said what books go in it and what books don’t.

I have to have some measure of faith in man’s involvement with the preservation of the bible It’'s not so hard to believe that God used man to preserve His Word. But I don’t have to believe everything the individuals in the church at that time believed. Even St. Augustine held some questionable beliefs.

No, I don’t believe everything is in the Bible - the Bible even says so. But I believe if there was something more that was needed the church wouldn’t have stopped with canonizing apostolic writings. I think the church wished scriptures to be THE rule of measure. Nothing wrong with tradition, but how would we differentiate between the apostle’s traditions from the “traditions of men”? How would we not be deceived if those traditions were not, over time, written in the scriptures?

Thanks

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catechism of the Catholic Church states;

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it

134 All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642: cf. ibid. 2, 9: PL 176, 642-643).

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=Scripture&s=SS

 

[scylla]

I would agree as a Catholic that Scriptures are sufficient when understood correctly… Catholics have to affirm that truth matters.

Who decides what is correct, all of us are sinners and none of us were around when the Apostles were listening to Jesus. So all we can do ourselves is give a personal interpretation 2000 years removed with our sinful tendencies corrupting our good will.

If we have complete good will we would see that Mary was created by God in the Gospel without sin, yet that is difficult to accept as, many of us are horrible sinners and to hear that sin can be avoided all together makes us feel bad.

The Scriptures are perfect, now the question is, is our understanding correct?

If our understanding isn’t, then it really doesn’t matter what the Scriptures say, since we can believe lies about God and still get to Heaven. We can misrepresent the Holy Word of God and get to Heaven? Or just the main things or most the stuff?
Why did Jesus teach the Apostles if it doesn’t matter what we believe?

Which Bible is correct? Does it need to have the Deuterocanonical books? Can we remove any books or use any translation?
Would Salvation only be offered to those who had the Bible after the printing press was invented?

The Scriptures are sufficient when understood correctly but most of the time they are misrepresented. If they were not misrepresented everyone would be in agreement with what doctrine is.

God Bless,
Scylla

Understanding correctly requires the understanding that Jesus taught of the Faith,…Sacred Tradition

 

[dylanschrader]

I have to have some measure of faith in man’s involvement with the preservation of the bible It’'s not so hard to believe that God used man to preserve His Word. But I don’t have to believe everything the individuals in the church at that time believed. Even St. Augustine held some questionable beliefs.

No, I don’t believe everything is in the Bible - the Bible even says so. But I believe if there was something more that was needed the church wouldn’t have stopped with canonizing apostolic writings. I think the church wished scriptures to be THE rule of measure. Nothing wrong with tradition, but how would we differentiate between the apostle’s traditions from the “traditions of men”? How would we not be deceived if those traditions were not, over time, written in the scriptures?

Thanks

Christ is God’s fullest revelation of himself to man because he is God himself.

The Lord commanded the apostles to hand on the Gospel. They did this in two ways: orally and in writing.

The key to knowing what is Tradition and what are traditions is the Magisterium of the Church, that is, the official teaching office of the bishops in union with the pope. The college of bishops, as successors of the apostles, have the task of authentically interpreting Revelation, including Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

That’s how we can be sure of what is the truth: Christ gave this authority to the apostles and their successors when he founded the Church.

The Scriptures can’t be sufficient in themselves because the Church is necessary for us to know authentically God’s Revelation.

If you’re asking why the Church doesn’t publish a book of teachings found in Tradition–she does from time to time. However, while the Scriptures were written thousands of years ago and are unchanging, the manner of expressing what is contained in Tradition can change from generation to generation, and doctrine can develop (e.g., as the logical consequences of something already known to be true are discerned).

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

But Scripture doesn’t say that is it formally sufficent, rather that it is “able to make you wise unto Salvation”,

Isn’t that sufficient then? Isn’t that what sinful man needs? Isn’t that enough?

even then it doesn’t even say that Scripture is the ONLY thing that will do that, only that Scripture CAN do that.

Ok. Then it’s agreed that Scripture can do it. And the thing of it is, I’m not comfortable with going outside of Scripture b/c I could be easily fooled by someone claiming that something is apostolic when, in fact, it may be man-made. However, I trust that with God’s grace and the direction I receive through the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures, that, if followed sincerely (as best as one can; laying aside personal preferrences, which, btw, can even be done in following a magisterium…)I can be led to Heaven.

Is this a wrong conclusion?

 

[scylla]

Yes it is the wrong conclusion unless you have perfect will and are sinless…

You go outside of Scripture by receiving Scripture, some person put that together for you, put in page numbers, translated it for you from the original Greek, Hebrew and possibly Aramaic. They decided which passages to include and which ones to not include.
Do we accept the Deuterocanonicals or do we not?

You decide which passages to believe, which ones to take literally, figuratively, culturally…etc…

An example…
Do you cover your head in Church, never speak and submit to men? 1 Corinthians 11
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians11.htm

Figuring out what is true on the other hand is easy as a Catholic.
It can be done with a magisterium pretty easily…
Like this, is Jesus God?

Lets check with the council of Nicea…
newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Not just with every whim a Bishop says but only with definitive unified pronouncements such as this…Which come from the Bible but is understood correctly…

In Christ
Scylla

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Thanks, Manny, Scylla and Dylan.

Since the scriptures can only be understoon in the light of the “church’s living tradition”, which

the manner of expressing what is contained in Tradition can change from generation to generation, and doctrine can develop

then how could a simpleton like me understand it correctly without the church’s constant guidance?

Do you see a problem with that? I do.

It’s like giving people the most awesome gift and telling them they can’t open it! Or, it’s like God gave the church the most awesome gift but it gave it away to people who would abuse it.

If it’s impossible to understand the Bible without the church, why on earth would the church give it to the layman in the first place?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

…its also like saying God gave the church magisterium an instruction manual, and the church decided to let the layman read it even though they couldn’t understand it…

it makes no sense to me…

 

[scylla]

God gives us many awesome gifts…

Our sexuality, now do we use it willy nilly…

We respect this gift with the utmost humility and let God decide how much of it we will use.

In the same way the Bible is an awesome gift, yet it must be respected as God’s Holy Word, not just a book, but truth which cannot be misrepresented or it is blasphemy.

This is why we stand at Mass when the Priest reads the Gospel, out of respect.

And understood correctly means you don’t have to study Greek, get a Concordance, go to Bible Studies or get a degree. All of that is good, obedient and Christian things to do, but first we must look to follow God’s Will.
We must be like Children as Jesus said, but we can also be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” As Jesus said also.

The Bible must be respected, does that help?

In Christ
Scylla

To misunderstand it is to attribute a lie to God’s Word, that is how serious it is.