If Protestantism Is True

[pablope]

I cited Dei Verbum. Here’s the relevant passage, from chap. 2 (emphasis mine):

OK, it’s speaking specifically of the magisterium. But since we’re talking about doctrinal authority in this context, and since the magisterium is surely the supreme doctrinal authority within the Church, by definition, it is surely correct to say that Scripture (and the Tradition as a whole) has authority over the Church.

I think you’re reacting to Protestant critiques on their own ground. They treat the question of authority as if it were somehow a “contest” between Scripture and the Church, so you respond in kind. But that’s the wrong way to approach it in the first place, surely.

Edwin

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

I there is a misunderstanding of what is meant by…“but serves it”…it does not say it is subservient to the word of God.

The word of God is both oral and written…and I think the latter part of the quote explains what is meant…* listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. *

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Okay,but how do you figure the Word of God refers strictly to Scripture in that statement?

I don’t.
But it includes Scripture.

Which also includes the oral aspect too.

Quote:Nicea325
No where does the statement claim written Scripture is supreme over the church. It merely says the church serves it,whether written or oral,it says nothing about Scripture is supreme over the church

.

Well, it depends on what we mean by “supreme,” I guess. I’m not sure what you think it means and how you are distinguishing supremacy from the “service” language used by the Council.

More important, how are those in support of SS defining it? Their position is basically stating the written Scripture since it contains the Word of God,by default is supreme over the church. Unfortunately no where do I find such a position or declaration by Jesus,the 12 or any NT writer with the same sentiments. Yes the church must obey the Word of God,written or oral,but no where is it explicitly stated written scripture-alone is supreme. Simply because it contains the Word of God. The position seems like an absolute TRUTH where I find very,very little supporting evidence. The Word of God is never regulated to written words alone,one error of many for SS advocates.

Quote:Nicea325
I still would like to read where the early church taught Scripture is supreme over the church.

I don’t think early Christians posed the question to themselves that way.

Because I do not believe or think it is was ever taught in such a fashion. The Scripture having authority-yes. But to state they are supreme over the church is something I have yet to read by any early Christian writer.

They certainly granted supreme authority to Scripture within the many authorities accepted by the Church.

Authority yes,but never confined to scripture alone as the sole rule for matters of faith and morals.

I think the problem with this discussion is that it avoids the strength of the Protestant argument. The Protestant position isn’t really about Scripture per se, but about the Word of God. (For instance, all the classic Protestant writers on this subject recognize that the NT was oral tradition before it was written Scripture.) The strongest way of putting the Protestant case is like this:

1. The Word of God is supreme.
2. The Church confesses Scripture to be the Word of God.
3. Therefore, the Church confesses Scripture to be authoritative over itself (as we’ve seen, thus far Vatican II agrees).
4. There is no other authoritative, authentic source for the Word of God. The Word of God is transmitted and proclaimed in many ways, but all of them except for Scripture are human and fallible.

Understood and noted. I see more clearly now-thank you.

This last is the unorthodox claim. But I think what Catholics miss is that it’s a negative claim, and thus doesn’t need positive support. Its strength is on the alleged weakness of the evidence for any other authoritative manifestation of the Word of God.

If one is claiming the church as whole must obey the Word of God,through written means or oral transmission,then yes. But to claim the **written **Word of God (The Bible) is supreme is not a negative claim,because to make such a declaration is to state it can be supported via the Bible because it is a Apostolic in origin.

Protestants will then quote patristic passages appealing to the material sufficiency of Scripture.

Sufficieny-yes,but just like water it is sufficient for survival,but not the only thing vital to survive.

What Protestants miss, of course, is that these passages all presuppose the authority of the Church first to discern and secondly to interpret Scripture. As was, again, well put in Dei Verbum (a document whose profundity and beauty I appreciate more and more).

Edwin

God Bless Edwin and your loved ones. May God bless you.

 

[Contarini]

I there is a misunderstanding of what is meant by…“but serves it”…it does not say it is subservient to the word of God.

What would “subservient” mean? I guess I’m having trouble understanding what you guys think is at stake here.

But you’re certainly right that “serves” can mean a lot of things. I looked at the Latin and the word is “ministrat.” That doesn’t help a lot, because the word is about as broad as the English equivalent. The noun “minister” originally did have the idea of a subordinate or servant. But the verb could mean “to take care of, manage, direct” as well as “wait upon, serve.” Perhaps we should both back off from the claims that the other has “misunderstood,” in the absence of some kind of authoritative commentary.

I’m basing my reading on the contrast with being “above.” When a word with potential connotations of subordination is used in contrast with the word “above,” it seems to me that subordination is implied. But I’ll grant that it’s not 100% clear.

Again, I’m not sure what is at stake here. As you say, the practical content is clearly given by the set of verbs and adverbs that follow: listen devoutly, guard scrupulously and explain faithfully. To me that does indicate supremacy.

Ironically, I’m just explaining the 16th-century Catholic stance to my Protestant online students in a church history class I’m teaching. They naturally find it odd to think of the Church being in any sense “above” Scripture. I’m making the case (taken from Oberman, largely) that this was mostly a canon-law approach. I’m further suggesting that early modern canon lawyers tended to see their task much as early modern royal lawyers did–manipulate the texts to say what your boss wants them to say (witness Henry VIII). This contrasted with the approach of the theologians. But both groups were united against Luther after Leipzig. I think this meant that the worldly cynicism of the canon lawyers was never fully confronted within Catholicism until the 20th century–it was fused with a conservative scholastic understanding of Scripture as the ultimate written authority, authoritatively interpreted by the Church.

I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to read some of the things sixteenth-century Catholic apologists said about Scripture without my blood boiling. They made much of it being a “nose of wax” that could mean anything you wanted it to.

Of course Scripture, if misinterpreted, can be used that way.

But the whole point of being an orthodox Christian is that you don’t treat Scripture that way. You do all the things that Vatican II said you should do. That’s not being “above” Scripture.

Edwin

 

[mackbrislawn]

Right. So we agree that the Church is not the creator of the Word of God, and thus not the creator of Scripture inasmuch as Scripture is the Word of God?

As many Catholics do on this issue, you seem to be eliding the distinction between being and knowing.

Saying that we know Scripture to be the Word of God because of the Church’s testimony does not make the Church the creator of Scripture. It does not mean that the Church makes Scripture to be the Word of God.

Edwin

That God is the creator of scripture is simply a matter of faith. Because as merely a matter of history God is not the creator of scrtipture. As I mentioned, in history certain men of the Church wrote writings. We see historically they wrote them as part of a body we can historically call the Church. Therefore the Church wrote and gave birth to various Christian writings.

So, looking by history alone we see that the Church created certain writings the Church itself decided was the Word of God. Deciding these writings were the Word of God did not make them the Word of God, because they aready were. But, without the Church deciding that, we wouldn’t know that certain writings produced by churchmen were inspired by God.

But, if you are a secularist historian or non-Catholic and don’t believe in the Church, logically there is no reason to accept these writings as being of God.

 

[Nicea325]

What would “subservient” mean? I guess I’m having trouble understanding what you guys think is at stake here.

But you’re certainly right that “serves” can mean a lot of things. I looked at the Latin and the word is “ministrat.” That doesn’t help a lot, because the word is about as broad as the English equivalent. The noun “minister” originally did have the idea of a subordinate or servant. But the verb could mean “to take care of, manage, direct” as well as “wait upon, serve.” Perhaps we should both back off from the claims that the other has “misunderstood,” in the absence of some kind of authoritative commentary.

I’m basing my reading on the contrast with being “above.” When a word with potential connotations of subordination is used in contrast with the word “above,” it seems to me that subordination is implied. But I’ll grant that it’s not 100% clear.

Again, I’m not sure what is at stake here. As you say, the practical content is clearly given by the set of verbs and adverbs that follow: listen devoutly, guard scrupulously and explain faithfully. To me that does indicate supremacy.

Ironically, I’m just explaining the 16th-century Catholic stance to my Protestant online students in a church history class I’m teaching. They naturally find it odd to think of the Church being in any sense “above” Scripture. I’m making the case (taken from Oberman, largely) that this was mostly a canon-law approach. I’m further suggesting that early modern canon lawyers tended to see their task much as early modern royal lawyers did–manipulate the texts to say what your boss wants them to say (witness Henry VIII). This contrasted with the approach of the theologians. But both groups were united against Luther after Leipzig. I think this meant that the worldly cynicism of the canon lawyers was never fully confronted within Catholicism until the 20th century–it was fused with a conservative scholastic understanding of Scripture as the ultimate written authority, authoritatively interpreted by the Church.

I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to read some of the things sixteenth-century Catholic apologists said about Scripture without my blood boiling. They made much of it being a “nose of wax” that could mean anything you wanted it to.

Of course Scripture, if misinterpreted, can be used that way.

But the whole point of being an orthodox Christian is that you don’t treat Scripture that way. You do all the things that Vatican II said you should do. That’s not being “above” Scripture.

Edwin

Well I think most Protestants and in particular your students would find it odd that the church is “above” Scripture. And why? Due to the roots of Protestanism where scripture is the final authority,I cannot blame them for believing something taught probably from childhood.

 

[Contarini]

Well I think most Protestants and in particular your students would find it odd that the church is “above” Scripture. And why? Due to the roots of Protestanism where scripture is the final authority,I cannot blame them for believing something taught probably from childhood.

Nicea, the Protestant Reformers found it odd, based on their Catholic education.

I repeat: I don’t understand what it would mean for the Church to be “above” Scripture; why this is important to you; and particularly why you insist in defending the idea when you’ve been shown an authoritative teaching of your own Church explicitly rejecting the idea.

We can argue over what “serves” means, but DV says very explicitly that the magisterium is not “above” the Word of God. Since Scripture is the Word of God (though not exclusively the Word of God), and since the magisterium is the formal teaching authority of the Church, it follows that the Church is certainly not above Scripture.

You have not refuted this logic. You just seem to want to ignore it.

Why?

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

Comes back to the order in history with Apostolic Succession. The Church preceeded with its Mass. Understanding Scripture to lead one away from Mass is not understanding Scripture in its intended sense. Jesus Christ didn’t write a word. He told a select group the Truth and they worshipped the Lord through the Eucharist and the Mysteries of the Church thus the Incarnation through the Risen Lord. Which He celebrated with them before sin was nailed to the Cross.

The relationship of teaching authority is contingent and presents a continuity which can only be argued against when one can present an undeniable case which the Church in fact ceased to be the Church. The fact that some disagree with the church in any area is not an unknown. Issues such as this existed from very early on.

All are servants to Christ and His written Word. To what degree one may chose to accept this is another question. One may not “ever” study Bible and attend Mass daily and find Salvation through Church/Eucharist/Prayer following the teachings. Another may not believe any of that and read the Word to His own demise in pride. And then there are all inbetween and to what percentage they vary in theology. 1% 25% 50% and exactly where and how then? From here the debate becomes their burden of proof which stands against 33-AD foward.

The Church is witness to its own history standing, living breathing since Christ who wrote not a Word.

 

[Contarini]

Comes back to the order in history with Apostolic Succession.

But temporal order isn’t the question here. Precedence in time does not mean precedence in nature–surely that’s obvious?

Also, it’s not true that the Church preceded Scripture anyway–just NT Scripture.

The Church preceeded with its Mass. Understanding Scripture to lead one away from Mass is not understanding Scripture in its intended sense.

No dispute there. I’d sign on to a much stronger claim than that–in a sense, Scripture is only fully Scripture in the context of the liturgy.

That doesn’t affect the point at issue.

Why is the choice between “the Church is above Scripture” or “Scripture potentially points away from the Church”?

That’s the stale dichotomy we’ve been handed by sixteenth-century polemics. Why would anyone want to be trapped in it?

Jesus Christ didn’t write a word.

Irrelevant to the point at issue. Jesus quoted Scripture as the Word of God over and over (OT Scripture, of course).

The relationship of teaching authority is contingent and presents a continuity which can only be argued against when one can present an undeniable case which the Church in fact ceased to be the Church.

I don’t know what the point of this is.

I’m not arguing against continuity or the Church or anything of that sort. I’m quoting Vatican II. Stop arguing against a straw man.

All are servants to Christ and His written Word.

Not just written–written and unwritten, as the Catholic Church teaches.

What exactly are we arguing about?

To what degree one may chose to accept this is another question. One may not “ever” study Bible and attend Mass daily and find Salvation through Church/Eucharist/Prayer following the teachings.

Agreed. But that doesn’t make the Church “above” Scripture. People find salvation through the Church because the Word (which, again, comes to us in more ways than just Scripture, though Scripture is central) is present and active in the Church.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

But temporal order isn’t the question here. Precedence in time does not mean precedence in nature–surely that’s obvious?

Also, it’s not true that the Church preceded Scripture anyway–just NT Scripture.

No dispute there. I’d sign on to a much stronger claim than that–in a sense, Scripture is only fully Scripture in the context of the liturgy.

That doesn’t affect the point at issue.

Why is the choice between “the Church is above Scripture” or “Scripture potentially points away from the Church”?

That’s the stale dichotomy we’ve been handed by sixteenth-century polemics. Why would anyone want to be trapped in it?

Irrelevant to the point at issue. Jesus quoted Scripture as the Word of God over and over (OT Scripture, of course).

I don’t know what the point of this is.

I’m not arguing against continuity or the Church or anything of that sort. I’m quoting Vatican II. Stop arguing against a straw man.

Not just written–written and unwritten, as the Catholic Church teaches.

What exactly are we arguing about?

Agreed. But that doesn’t make the Church “above” Scripture. People find salvation through the Church because the Word (which, again, comes to us in more ways than just Scripture, though Scripture is central) is present and active in the Church.

Edwin

Edwin,

I know you are an introspective honest person. You are well read and you have guided me to and I have read on your suggestion things that have caused me to expand and engage my interest. Here I am typing on a mechanism that did not exist for all ages.

Writing as you know came into being slowly as did reading. Rocks, then paper, and of course the books we have now. Scripture or the NT as you say came into being sometime and there may be dispute as to when it was consolidated.

The NT when read has nuances. I have marvelled at Matthew, as you know, the Gospel of the Church and then when I read Paul…of course you see he makes some fantastic claims…

In many and various ways God has spoken through the Prophets…and in these last days he has spoken through his son…and we can turn to Genesis and see God spoke to Adam and throughout the OT we see and believe that God spoke…long before there was writing…

Getting back to Paul…Paul says that the Church is the “mystery hidden for all ages”…as you know many times and speaks of this mystery…“hidden for all ages”…and if something is hidden for all ages…then when you consider the history of writing, reading, speaking through prophets…I believe you have to take pause and ask…

If the Church was hidden for all ages…and it was mentioned several times by Paul…and as you say NT Scripture…as we know came to be written after the resurrection…then would you say that it is possible to rethink this proposition that you say that the Church did not precede NT Scripture?

I would say that if something was hidden for all ages, it was there… and it was not seen…suggesting that once evident may lead one to say that evidence of things not seen preceeded Scripture…

 

[GaryTaylor]

But temporal order isn’t the question here. Precedence in time does not mean precedence in nature–surely that’s obvious?

Also, it’s not true that the Church preceded Scripture anyway–just NT Scripture.

Right but it gives us clarity to understanding Church history which has never stopped. NT becomes the recorded word carried foward, we still have the Oral tradition true in Judaism also.

No dispute there. I’d sign on to a much stronger claim than that–in a sense, Scripture is only fully Scripture in the context of the liturgy.

I hear you, unfortunate many are lost here.

That doesn’t affect the point at issue.

Not in the sense we are talking

Why is the choice between “the Church is above Scripture” or “Scripture potentially points away from the Church”?

Its not, its really understanding perspective. Which in this understanding that scripture alone has led us to vague concepts.

That’s the stale dichotomy we’ve been handed by sixteenth-century polemics. Why would anyone want to be trapped in it?

Again its perspective.

Irrelevant to the point at issue. Jesus quoted Scripture as the Word of God over and over (OT Scripture, of course).

Right. yet drawn out through history we still become reduced to Oral Tradition even here. Which takes us deeper into tradition

I don’t know what the point of this is.

To look at a relationship between Tradition/Scripture and their interaction. Which I believe we agree exists. To see an existing balance

I’m not arguing against continuity or the Church or anything of that sort. I’m quoting Vatican II.

I know your not. And I understand, doesn’t the whole point come down to what degree Church teaching enlightens understanding thus what authroity? Then who choose’s to follow or not and to what degree of belief?

Not just written–written and unwritten, as the Catholic Church teaches.

Right,

What exactly are we arguing about?

Were not, I’m just devoloping ideas out loud. I think we become caught up in words of description, level of authority etc. Instead of viewing the entire picture objectively which I believe we are. I think we can conclude there are many unanswered questions which time will no doubt reveal.

Agreed. But that doesn’t make the Church “above” Scripture. People find salvation through the Church because the Word (which, again, comes to us in more ways than just Scripture, though Scripture is central) is present and active in the Church.

The Church becomes above Scripture when we as individuals conclude the Church is correct, then we as individuals place more value on its teaching so in this sense to the individual it can and does become above scripture. In truth correctly understanding scripture as scripture, its living and moving foward as is the Church. Thus the need to understand what has been revealed through revelation can not end for we are left with Mystery. So one is in relation to the other. To what levels one in Christianity place importance for example with Dogmatic becomes their free-will in relation to authority.

Here we find also that while both aspects move forward in time, many areas have never changed. Heres where I see the concern though its not related specifically to you or I talking, or how you or I feel about the church in history. It just becomes a known that the Bible only in the hands of the wrong individual could and has been a danger. Such as new Biblical revelation with new prophets etc.

We need a unified communion within the Church which I believe at some point we can expect, when I do not know. What we have is unfinished learning and business. Though I see forward movement. This was no different in the apostles time, or the 16th century, or today. Its a zig-zag line through time since the Mysteries of God are reduced to human understanding and revealed as He wills.

 

[Miriam1947]

Actually an ecumenical Council did–Vatican II in Dei Verbum says that the Church is the servant of the Word. And yes, I know that the Word of God comes to us in more forms that Scripture according to Catholic teaching (with which I agree), but Scripture is the Word of God. Hence. the Catholic Church (in entire agreement with the teachings of the early Church) has proclaimed Scripture to be supreme over the Church.

I get why you would attack sola Scriptura. But when you attack the supremacy of Scripture you are attacking your own Tradition.

Edwin

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

If protestantism is true than I’m Oprah Winfrey

 

[JonNC]

If protestantism is true than I’m Oprah Winfrey

How’s the network doing?

Jon

 

[Hboggs]

Hi,
I’m currently reading the book about 40% into it. As a converted protestant about 8 years ago, I find the book most interesting in that it takes a somewhat different approach to issues discussed in zillions of books! Yes, it is an easy and quick read, but it does raise questions in a very interesting manner. If a Protestant were to read it without total bias, they would have to pause and ask themselves so pointed questions.

As for other authors - Scott Hahn #1.

Peace

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, the Protestant Reformers found it odd, based on their Catholic education.

Precisely why they are called "protest"ant due to their protesting…

I repeat: I don’t understand what it would mean for the Church to be “above” Scripture; why this is important to you; and particularly why you insist in defending the idea when you’ve been shown an authoritative teaching of your own Church explicitly rejecting the idea.

I never said Vatican II stated the Church is “above” Scripture in the statement you provided. I never implied it. I am sorry,and with all due respect to you and all of your education;however, I am also an educated man,but I do not believe that statment by Vatican II is saying what you are claiming. Now I repeat: That statement by Vatican II does not explicitly state,listen carefully…WRITTEN SCRIPTURE ALONE is SUPREME over the church. Never does it make an isolated statement in reference to the WRITTEN Word of God. That is my point. It says written and oral and the church serves it. A Protestant here clearlyy stated, WRITTEN Scripture is supreme over the church. The CC does accept such an idea if that is what you think.

We can argue over what “serves” means, but DV says very explicitly that the magisterium is not “above” the Word of God. Since Scripture is the Word of God (though not exclusively the Word of God), and since the magisterium is the formal teaching authority of the Church, it follows that the Church is certainly not above Scripture.

Yes,but it also never explicitly states the WRITTEN WORD is supreme either. Again…that is my point.

You have not refuted this logic. You just seem to want to ignore it.

Why?

Refuted? Ignore it? I do not think so! Go back several posts and see where others also asked the individual stating the WRITTEN Word is supreme over the church to show us where it is taught? If so,where is it said in Scripture and I have to read any CC document saying the WRITTTEN Word alone is supreme. Your passage by DV never explicitly states the WRITTEN Word-alone is supreme

What I have not read is the logic behind

Edwin

 

[mackbrislawn]

But temporal order isn’t the question here. Precedence in time does not mean precedence in nature–surely that’s obvious?

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the manner of interpreting Scripture is ulimately subject to the Church [which it is] which is the same Church which exercises the divinely conferred commision and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God. how in the world does Scripture which are words on paper become Authoritive over the Church? This is from Dei Verbum btw which is what the CC quotes in the CCC.

Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence…Dei Verbum

How this interaction plays out we went through, so then it varies to the individuals understanding as in the relationship of importance and relevance to each other. If it leads you away from the Apostolic Church then you are simply wrong.

Which is in relation to understanding the Sacred Tradition, its history which preceeded the Word of God.

Its impossible, its an illusion of mind somehow bought into and accepted by the illusive chase of Freedom. Vanity and a chase of the Wind as Scripture states.

This may well in fact be many a Protestant claim, but as simple as could be stated its inverted History, the Horse and Wagon reversed. In a sublime way, regardless of which Protestant preacher you pick the message always returns to their Church as the “authentic” way. I never heard not one say, “You don’t have to attend our congregation” just read the Bible and your good, very much on the contrary. For the same dilemma exists, the Bible is not so easy to comprehend, it requires time, research, cross ref, and short to long term memory effectiveness a vast understanding of history and its context of its specific period. And in the end of that journey you find what was and is the Apostolic Church

Not a task for every day individuals who BTW are looking for a sense of “FREEDOM” within church, not another Cross. Feeling Good is relevent in mans mind to Freedom which is misunderstood as the work of the HS. The fact that people are following along with scripture hop-skipping around while chanting AMEN is something to behold. However, it will not nor ever has preceeded or replaced the Apostolic Tradition. Which also doesn’t mean those following Scripture in whatever interpretation of church they venerate, doesn’t mean they have not in some way encountered the Living God. It also doesn’t make that model correct and another wrong. It just is what it is. Another version of what USE TO BE a Apostolic Church with a new twist of understanding Scripture which of course the Apostles and their students “misunderstood” the correct meaning of. Thank God John Calvin came along to correct us.

While the motivational speakers claiming one thing, the quiet reflective message is stating another. “HERE IS THE TRUE CHURCH” And mankind goes for this like a Like a Trout to a Fly. If you are not in an Apostolic Church then you have entered into some form of a community other than what the Apostles started and the Church defined though its apostolic succession.

This exists in some sublime fashion throughout Protestant thinking, or the message would NEVER be the Bible First and Only. It would be the Church and its Sacred Tradition FIRST! The fact that this cannot happen with protestants is indictive that it leads you back to the Apostolic Church. Who ever said anything contray for the first 12-centuries? In fact its very much the opposite. Which gets back to my point the Horse and Cart are in reverse! Jesus turned Bread and Wine into himself “FIRST” before the Cross, this happened before anyone even wrote a word. They were stunned and couldn’t quantify what they witnessed. Nothing was written till this was processed after the Holy Spirit.

There is NO ARGUEMENT whatever that sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; although sacred Scripture is profitable for these ends, it is not sufficient. “Newman” Amen to that!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul states it (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

The degree of the interaction is relevant only on a individual basis in how much you are subjected to it. This is not the case with the Apostolic Church for you must be subject to it. That is the teaching of the Bible which confirms the Oral Tradition

The facts are clear historically, the Bible is subject to the teaching authority, and its no different in Protestant teaching, however much one would like to stomp their feet and claim otherwise. Otherwise no-one would attend church…FOR WHAT??? You can Baptise yourselfs “officially” what in the world would you need a church for. They threw the Sacraments out the window anyway. There is NO “Altus Christus” no valid consecration and no forgiveness of sin unless God so wills it by you completely being subject to his commandments. The Sinners prayer? Where is that in the Bible? Where in the Bible does Jesus say just pray to Me and your sins are forgiven. NOWHERE is the answer

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative and is authoritive.

Fundamentalists and Evangelical scripture arguements fail under close scutiny. If you do not nor cannot see it then you must digress to the step by step analayis. At the end you will and must conclude you are wrong, and not only that but the limited understanding inhibits seeing the Mystery of God further defined through Doctrine, which is correct nor can be proved otherwise. Which can be proved incorrect? NONE!

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Robert H. Brom/Bishop

Wait, wait lets repeat that line; "If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles’. It sure can and it has throughout History.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;9441579:

Precedence in nature? But scripture and the Church have the same nature. Both established by God.[/QNOTE]

They can’t have the same nature. They aren’t the same kind of thing. Both being established by God doesn’t make them the same.

I think part of the problem here is that two things get mixed up. Language about Scripture being “above” the Church may seem to Catholics to denigrate the Church’s sacred character as the Body of Christ, and similarly Protestants hear “the Church is above Scripture” and think the Word of God is being denigrated.

But in fact what we’re talking about is authority

.

Dei Verbum clearly states that the teaching authority of the Church serves the Word and is not above it. Scripture is “above” the Church in the sense that Scripture is the Word of God to which the Church obediently listens. It is this obedient listening to the Word (not Scripture alone but the entirety of the Tradition in all its forms) that gives the Church its authority. That’s why the infallibility of the Church is an important Catholic doctrine. That’s why infallibility is necessary for Scripture and Church not to be set over against each other.

The Old Testament church preceded Old Testament scripture.

I don’t think you’ll find that it’s generally Catholic usage to call the OT people of God the “Church,” though I’m open to correction. I believe that’s a Reformed usage that indicates a blurrier distinction between the Testaments than is accepted in Catholicism.

The people of God existed before they began writing scripture.

But not before they heard the Word.

The authority of Scripture is the authority of the Word of God. That’s why the question of when and how Scripture was written is irrelevant for the question of the relative authority of Scripture and Church. The Word always had authority over God’s people, always have, and always will have. When the Word is written down by divine inspiration as Scripture, God’s people (infallibly guided, under the New Covenant, by the Spirit through the bishops in apostolic succession in union with the bishop of Rome) acknowledge Scripture to be the Word of God and thus to have authority over the Church.

All of scripture was written within a context; that is why it is so important to keep and read scripture within that context. If one puts himself out of that context and tries to understand scripture, he very likely will misunderstand.

You’re so set on arguing against Protestants who deny the Catholic teaching that you can’t seem to see that I’m doing nothing of the sort. Nothing you say above is relevant, because I entirely agree.

Jesus quoted a lot of OT scripture, but He also quoted a lot of His own teaching. He did not write it down. He relied on people to preach His message. He founded His Church to do that job. Certain members of that Church wrote down certain teachings, which are part of the Church, which the Church may use, and which belong to the Church.

Why the word “may”? That is what rightly bothers Protestants, as if the Church had the discretion to accept or reject Scripture. The Church has no such discretion if Scripture is (as Catholics confess) the Word of God. What makes Scripture the Word of God is not the action of the Church but God’s action inspiring Scripture. The Church hears the voice of God in Scripture and thus acknowledges it as the Word of God. There’s no “may” about it, given the divine inspiration of Scripture and the infallibility of the Church.

I don’t know what is meant to say the Church is “above scripture,”

I don’t quite know either, which is why I’m asking why Catholics on this forum want to use such language. But the language you use above implies that Scripture is just another set of ecclesiastical writings produced by members of the Church and used by the Church at Her discretion. That language does not match the language that the Fathers used about Scripture, nor does it match the way OT Scripture is spoken of in the NT, nor does it match the teaching of Dei Verbum.

or to say scripture is “supreme” over the Church.

Scripture (not on its own but as the written expression of the Word of God, which also comes to the Church in other forms as Tradition, to use Dei Verbum’s distinction) is “supreme” in the sense that the Church listens obediently to Scripture as to the Word of God. When the Church discerns that a book is divinely inspired, the Church is obligated to accept that book as authoritative. When the Church discerns that Scripture, interpreted as a whole and in the light of the whole Tradition, teaches something, then the Church is obligated to obey. And according to the Catholic teaching of infallibility, the Church always will obey (or at least will never flat-out refuse to obey–the obedience may be muddled and imperfect and may take a while to work out).

Of course for sola scripturists, they begin with scripture, and derive church. So, for them, obviously, scripture is supreme over their church. But Catholics do not start with scipture, they start with Church, and derive scripture from it.

If you’re talking about the order of knowing, yes. Logically, it is the natural order for us to accept Scripture on the word of the Church, as St. Augustine said. And in fact pretty much all Protestants do this whether they admit it or not (I certainly did–my family handed me a Bible and said “this is the Word of God,” and I believed them and the Church that was speaking through them, however imperfect our connection to Her).

But as St. Thomas said, the order of knowing and the order of being are typically the reverse of each other.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the manner of interpreting Scripture is ulimately subject to the Church [which it is] which is the same Church which exercises the divinely conferred commision and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God. how in the world does Scripture which are words on paper become Authoritive over the Church?

Because, with all due respect, you’re confusing the relationship between the Church and its members with the relationship between Church and Scripture. Ironically, this is the same basic confusion that Protestants have historically made, so clearly Protestants shouldn’t be blamed too harshly

The fact that the Church has authority over me with regard to how *I *interpret Scripture does not affect the Church’s relationship to Scripture. Why would you bring this in as if it were relevant? The Church has authority over me because the Church listens to the Word of God. It isn’t that the Church has authority over me whether it agrees with Scripture or not (which is the Protestant caricature of the Catholic position) but that the Church has authority over me because it is guided by the Spirit in listening to the Word of God (of which Scripture is the written form, not the only form).

I’m talking about doctrine, of course. The Church has disciplinary authority even if that authority is exercised in ways that clearly do not come from God. But that’s because the Church’s discipline, even if badly carried out, rests on doctrinal principles derived from the Word of God.

Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence…Dei Verbum

Indeed.

Again, I think you’ve ironically accepted a Protestant way of framing this issue, in which “tradition” goes along with “Church” and stands over against “Scripture.” Or more precisely, you assume that this is what I’m defending. But it’s not. I’m defending the position of Dei Verbum, in which “Tradition” (note the large “T”) goes along with “Scripture” as the Word of God to which the Church is obedient.

The whole idea that “tradition” is interchangeable with “Church” in these discussions is an artifact of Reformation-era polemic.

We’re not arguing about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, but between Scripture (which is the written, but not the only, form of the Word of God) and the Church. Two completely different things.

If it leads you away from the Apostolic Church then you are simply wrong.

Agreed.

I never heard not one say, “You don’t have to attend our congregation”

Well, I have.

Not that that’s relevant here.

The fact that people are following along with scripture hop-skipping around

I’m not sure if you refer to the preacher hop-skipping through Scripture or the congregation engaging in bodily movement. I think both of these are excellent practices (the former is called “intertextuality” and is the way all the Fathers interpret Scripture), but I agree that they need to take place within the context of Tradition and not as a replacement for it

Another version of what USE TO BE a Apostolic Church with a new twist of understanding Scripture which of course the Apostles and their students “misunderstood” the correct meaning of. Thank God John Calvin came along to correct us.

The point where I agree with Calvin is that you can’t simply define the Church as the body guided by the Spirit without saying that this guidance takes place through the Word.

However, Calvin went wrong when he assumed that he, as an early-modern Biblical scholar (actually mostly self-taught in theology, but that’s not really the point here), was the judge of whether or not the Church was actually listening to the Word, so that he could characterize any doctrinal disagreement between himself and the Catholic hierarchy or traditional Catholic theology as the latter not listening to the Word. (I heard an excellent paper last year which argued–to the consternation of some folks present–that Calvin effectively saw himself as “above Scripture”–this was clearly hyperbolic language, but if it’s fair to say that Catholics think the Church is above Scripture then it’s just as fair to say that Calvin saw himself that way, because in practice he acted as if his teachings were the authoritative interpretation of Scripture.)

Who ever said anything contray for the first 12-centuries? In fact its very much the opposite.

Actually I find the theologians of the first 12 centuries pretty consistently exalting Scripture over the Church. But not in the Protestant sense of making the Church just a fallible community that needs to be “reformed” by heroic theologians who get the Bible right where the traditional Church has gotten it wrong.

Which gets back to my point the Horse and Cart are in reverse! Jesus turned Bread and Wine into himself “FIRST” before the Cross, this happened before anyone even wrote a word.

No, before anyone wrote a word of the *New *Testament.

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul states it (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

This argument works against some of the sillier, fundamentalist forms of Protestantism. But it does not refute the classical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That doctrine does not say that the Word of God can only exist in a written form. It says that Scripture is now the only infallible form in which the Word of God comes to us. Protestants have always recognized that the NT was oral tradition before it was written Scripture. 2 Thessalonians, in particular, is arguably one of the earlier books in the NT (if one takes the traditional view that it is written by Paul and is a relatively close sequel to 1 Thessalonians). So according to defenders of Sola Scriptura, when Paul wrote those words the NT canon had not been completed, and obviously people had access to verifiable, oral apostolic preaching. The Protestant argument is that once the canon had been completed, and once the apostles themselves had died, our only certain access to apostolic Tradition is Scripture.

It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Nor do classical Protestants argue for either notion. The Reformers in fact taught that preaching is a form of the Word of God–just not infallible. And of course not all Jesus’ teachings were reduced to writing–the question is whether we now have any of Jesus’ teachings that weren’t reduced to writing.

The only possible example of a specific such teaching I can think of is a clearly millenialist teaching found in Irenaeus, citing Papias. I think it would be fairly hard for Catholics to accept this as a genuine teaching of Jesus.

Of course one can argue in a general way that doctrines such as the Real presence or the sacrificial priesthood were taught more clearly by Jesus in oral form than in anything we have in writing.

Note that the above paragraphs are an argument against what I find to be simplistic Catholic arguments and do not indicate that I agree with Sola Scriptura. I don’t. But these arguments don’t get to the real issues.

The facts are clear historically, the Bible is subject to the teaching authority

Sigh. . . . you come back to this slogan even though nothing you have said comes anywhere near to establishing it, and even though your own Church has authoritatively stated the exact opposite.

How is the Bible “subject” to the Church’s teaching authority? Could the Church have decided that one of the books of the canonical NT wasn’t really canonical? That would mean either that

a) an inspired book could be non-canonical; or that
b) inspiration is somehow caused (not just recognized) by the Church.

Neither of these make sense.

Could the Church teach something contrary to the genuine teaching of the Bible? Me genoito, as St. Paul would say.

Again, you seem to me to be defending a Protestant caricature of Catholicism as if it were the real thing. This is disastrous. I know better, because I’ve read a good bit of Catholic theology. But talk that way to the average Protestant, and they’ll walk away from the Church, with considerable excuse.

The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative and is authoritive.

But oral, apostolic tradition isn’t a product of the Church either. It’s the Word of God, to which, again, the Church obediently listens.

I want to repeat, again, that we’re talking about doctrinal authority. I would entirely agree that it wouldn’t be appropriate to say that Scripture is greater or better or more divine than the Church. The fellowship of the Church, the worship of the Church, the holy witness of the Church (in the person of the saints)–we’re not talking about those things. We’re talking about the teaching authority of the Church. This teaching authority, by its own admission (in Dei Verbum) is subject to Scripture and indeed to the Word of God in all its forms, not the other way round.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the Church was hidden for all ages…and it was mentioned several times by Paul…and as you say NT Scripture…as we know came to be written after the resurrection…then would you say that it is possible to rethink this proposition that you say that the Church did not precede NT Scripture?

I would say that if something was hidden for all ages, it was there… and it was not seen…suggesting that once evident may lead one to say that evidence of things not seen preceeded Scripture…

This is a very interesting point.

Are you speaking of Ephesians 3:8-10? That passage does not seem to me to be saying clearly that the Church is the mystery, but that the mystery is known through the Church. However, the syntax isn’t very clear.

A similar passage is Col. 1:25-26. There it looks as if the “Word of God” is the mystery.

So on the most basic level, we have one passage that seems to say the Word is the mystery hidden for all ages (and “Word” there seems to mean what it means in Dei Verbum, not what it means in John 1 where it refers to Jesus Himself, though of course the two are closely connected, as are Jesus and the Church!), and another that may say that the Church is the mystery, but less clearly.

However, that doesn’t entirely answer your point. Obviously the Church does pre-exist in God’s electing purpose and eternal knowledge, and insofar as the Church mystically is the Body of Christ and Christ pre-exists. I’m not denying any of that.

But we’re talking about the teaching authority of the Church, and that only makes sense insofar as we’re talking about a historical community of people.

That being said, I can’t see that temporal precedence matters much at all. The point is brought up by those arguing for the “Church over the Bible” position, and in that argument “Church” clearly refers to an actual community of people.

Edwin