How sufficient does the CC deem the Scriptures?

[guanophore]

1. (The RCC claims) we can’t understand scripture w/out the church’s interpretation. The church has the only proper interpretation of scripture (i.e. an infallible interpretation).

I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever claimed any such thing. Can you show me where you get that?

1. …church **teaching **cannot contradict its infallible interpretation of **scripture **(or its infallible traditions). This means, in essence, that church teachings must also then be infallible.

Yes. I think I am missing the problem?

3)…No writing will be given the stamp of approval (Nihil Obstat) if it contradicts church **teaching, **which is based on the church’s infallible traditions and infallible interpretation of scripture, therefore also making it, in essence, infallible.

I think that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the stamp. Just because a book does not contain things that contradict the church’s teaching, that does not make the work infallible teaching of itself. Supposing I write a children’s book that does not contradict scripture or tradition. Does that mean my children’s book should be raised to the level of the Teachings?

Do you see this chain??? No matter how you slice it, the church is always right.

I see that you seem to feel somehow constrained and limited by this “chain” which is really more like an unbroken beam of light. For some reason you do not feel liberated by being offered truth, but constrained by it. It causes one to wonder;…what is it about Church teaching that is nagging so badly?

Yet I’ve had priests tell me that the only thing ever pronounce “ex cathedra” is the perpetual virginity of Mary (if my memory serves me right). And if that’s the case, why should I believe anything the church claims?

That, and the assumption of Mary. I would think, since you are so resistant to the authority represented by such an announcement, that you would be pleased to know that it is used so infreqently. Why do you not seem to be pleased?

Why believe anything any council ever pronounced? If nothing but Mary was ever pronounced as infallible, than everything the church teaches is up for debate.

Clearly you do not understand the nature and extent of infallibility. Do you think the words of Jesus in your New Testament should be up for debate?

You certainly have to adhere to the claim of infallibility to claim the CC has, without error, the full deposit of faith.

I think you are right about this.

If you can’t tell me each individual teaching is infallible, then I can’t know it really is the truth. (Yes I understand that not everything the church does in practice is unchangeable, even according to church teaching. I’m not talking about clerical dress for instance)

Oh, I am relieved about that! I was getting worried there for a minute. It began to seem like you thought the Pope needed to rubber stamp every idle word that had ever been spoken.

So, either the CC is right about these things, or it’s only right about Mary. Your guess is as good as mine.

Fortunately, I do not have to guess. I made a decision to trust what Jesus said, that he appointed His Apostles, and that He taught them truth, and that He sent His Holy Spirit to see to it that the truth was preserved. However, unlike you, I have a great sense of relief about having this authority. It gives me great peace, and comfort. I am not sure why you don’t experience that…

Do you not believe that Mary was a virgin?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever claimed any such thing. Can you show me where you get that?

Ok, not worded correctly. Rephrase: The CC teaches that individuals cannot correctly interpret scripture without recourse to the church’s traditions and magesterial teachings (the “trinity” of understanding the full deposit of truth, as Fr. Corapi puts it). That’s another way of saying, “you can’t understand scripture on your own.”.

Does that mean my children’s book should be raised to the level of the Teachings?

good point. Anyhow, I really went off on a tangent there. It really isn’t that applicable to my problem. I don’t pine about the infallibility of the breviary . In fact, I quite love it:thumbsup:

I see that you seem to feel somehow constrained and limited by this “chain” which is really more like an unbroken beam of light.

I know it looks that way. I should have given it more thought. It was just rambling…

For some reason you do not feel liberated by being offered truth

I would definately feel liberated if I knew exactly what the truth consisted of (other than what is revealed in God’s Word - IF there is anything more [theologically speaking…]).

It causes one to wonder;…what is it about Church teaching that is nagging so badly?

Morally, not much: I don’t believe in annulments - at least not to the extent that the church permits. I don’t think it’s right that the priesthood can’t be taken from corrupt priests. I don’t believe in “just war” (I do, however, believe God can bring about good as a result of the evil of sinful war. IOW, in the case of war [as well as many other instances of evil], God can use it for His own purposes.) There may be others, but I’m running out of gas tonite…
In the case of other teachings though, I’ve got big issues: the idea of a “vicar of Christ”, the priesthood (as defined and practiced in the CC), the “incarnation theology” (I think that’s what it’s called) and how it relates to it’s views on the “sacraments” and “sacramentals” (art, statues, etc.), the “mediatrix” and co-redemptrix of Mary…there is so much. It would take forever to address it all. It’s all dependant on how you view the new covenant; the kingdom of God; the royal priesthood… I can see the possibility of the CC’s teachings on all of these things, but I’m not comfortable with accepting them. I see this other possibility as equally convincing. Catholicism seems to carry much of the OT over into the NT (idea of a “patriarch”/vicar of christ, for instance). That can seem like proof of authenticy, unless you view the new covenant differently: 1 Pet 2:9 “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;”

That, and the assumption of Mary. I would think, since you are so resistant to the authority represented by such an announcement, that you would be pleased to know that it is used so infreqently. Why do you not seem to be pleased?

What is the “that” in this sentence “that, and the assumption of Mary”? The immaculate conception? So, as a Catholic, is that all I am bound to believe? So, I don’t have to believe that the Pope is the vicar of Christ?

Clearly you do not understand the nature and extent of infallibility. Do you think the words of Jesus in your New Testament should be up for debate?

Of course not.

You may be right. I may not have a clear understanding of the nature and extent of infallibility. And we both agree in the infallibility of the NT. But if the CC has never made the “ex cathedra” pronouncement that only IT can rightly divide the Word of God (infallibly), then what’s the point in arguing about anything else about church teaching? We can then agree that all of the church’s teachings (other than the immaculate conception and assumption of mary)_are possibly as reliable as my own interpretation of the Bible.

Fortunately, I do not have to guess. I made a decision to trust what Jesus said, that he appointed His Apostles, and that He taught them truth, and that He sent His Holy Spirit to see to it that the truth was preserved.

I trust the same. We just disagree about where that truth was preserved.

However, unlike you, I have a great sense of relief about having this authority. It gives me great peace, and comfort.

It would give me great peace and comfort if I knew for certain just where that authority was. I’ve absolutely NO PROBLEM with authority of any kind whatsoever.

I am not sure why you don’t experience that…

God help me, neither am I (sure).

Do you not believe that Mary was a virgin?

Yes, I do believe she was a virgin. I’m not sure I believe she was a “perpetual virgin” though.

 

[WynCatholic]

Ok, not worded correctly. Rephrase: The CC teaches that individuals cannot correctly interpret scripture without recourse to the church’s traditions and magesterial teachings (the “trinity” of understanding the full deposit of truth, as Fr. Corapi puts it). That’s another way of saying, “you can’t understand scripture on your own.”.

not really, I think it is another way of saying: this is the Gospel we have received and celebrate in the liturgy. What you read and seek to understand in the Bible won’t contradict what we believe.
Every denomination or church has its [sometimes unofficial] majesterium: in my home church[reformed baptist theologically], heaven help you if you preached any kind of dispensationalist sermon. At the Baptist church up the street heaven help you if you preached reformed theology.[same baptist denomination, btw] both would fry your chops if you preached pacificism or baptism by anything other than imersion.
The Catholic Church takes its majesterium a little more formally because this book (the Bible) arose from their apostolic teaching

Morally, not much: I don’t believe in annulments - at least not to the extent that the church permits.

If the church actually had taught the flock and practiced its theology their would be less annulments. And with some stories you might only hear parts. those who are judges on the panel know they face a stricter judgement. the important concept is sacramental marriage, bwtw not ‘real marriage’.

I don’t think it’s right that the priesthood can’t be taken from corrupt priests.

That’s why Holy Orders is a separate sacrament from marriage. There is some really neat theology in this area that needs to be reflected upon so i can’t go further just now.

I don’t believe in “just war”

effectively, some catholics don’t either. the depth of reflection within the church on this topic is remarkable, you could enjoy exploring it. “First Things” lets both sides have at it, but the authority of the church is always piviotal.

There may be others, but I’m running out of gas tonite…

ditto

In the case of other teachings though, I’ve got big issues: the idea of a “vicar of Christ”, the priesthood (as defined and practiced in the CC), the “incarnation theology” (I think that’s what it’s called) and how it relates to it’s views on the “sacraments” and “sacramentals” (art, statues, etc.), the “mediatrix” and co-redemptrix of Mary…there is so much. It would take forever to address it all. It’s all dependant on how you view the new covenant; the kingdom of God; the royal priesthood… I can see the possibility of the CC’s teachings on all of these things, but I’m not comfortable with accepting them.

perhaps take some time sola scriptura and read the NT and ask could this be a catholic book? How could the early church have thought so?

I see this other possibility as equally convincing. Catholicism seems to carry much of the OT over into the NT (idea of a “patriarch”/vicar of christ, for instance). That can seem like proof of authenticy, unless you view the new covenant differently: 1 Pet 2:9 “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;”
What is the “that” in this sentence “that, and the assumption of Mary”? The immaculate conception? So, as a Catholic, is that all I am bound to believe? So, I don’t have to believe that the Pope is the vicar of Christ?

perhaps a thread concerning the particular understanding of the covenant you prefer over the catholic church’s understanding. And another thread on whichever doctrine that you think is true, in contrast to the teaching you understand that the church teaches,
Remember that the church’s teaching is almost always deferent than what her detractors say it is.

Rejoice in His peace and joy

 

[OneForTruth]

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.

You forgot to add 2 Timothy 3:17…

2 Timothy 3:17 KJV 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

**Perfect **- 739 ἄρτιος [artios /ar·tee·os/] adj. From 737; TDNT 1:475; TDNTA 80; GK 787; AV translates as “perfect” once. 1 fitted. 2 complete, perfect. 2a having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given uses”.

Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G739

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Just want to say thanks to everyone who contributed here. You’ve put a lot of effort into helping me see the Catholic p.o.v., for which I am very greatful. I’m going to lay-off posting on these threads for now. It’s getting harder for me to follow some of the responses in the original context b/c of the multiple dissections when cutting and pasting. (I’m not very good at this messaging thing ). It’s not so bad when I can respond shortly after someone else has replied to something, but I don’t have enough time to dedicate to this. I also feel like I’m going around in circles explaining how I see things which may be my fault for having 3 threads going at the same time. I will, however be looking back at this and reconsidering everyone’s p.o.v.

I will probably explore the Catholic and non-Catholic views of the New Covenant, Priesthood, Kingdom and that sort of thing next. Or I may start with the Papacy which ties into all of this. Not sure yet.

Anyway, thanks for all your insight and prayers!

God Bles You:grouphug: