If Protestantism Is True

[Contarini]

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

In John 1 that clearly refers to Jesus.

Dei Verbum isn’t just saying that the Church is the servant of Jesus. It clearly defines “Word of God” as the revelation given to the prophets and the apostles and handed down both in written form (as Scripture) and in other forms (as Tradition).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

Thanks for this clarification.

As I said in my longer post, I think this confuses the order of knowing with the order of being, and also confuses our relationship to the Church with the Church’s relationship with Scripture.

Of course if I conclude the Church is correct, then I put more value on its teaching (based on the Word of God, including Scripture) than on my own interpretation of Scripture. But that doesn’t mean that I put more value on its teaching than on Scripture.

One of the most fatal confusions of Protestantism is to identify “Scripture” with “my interpretation of Scripture.” But it seems to me that you’re simply reproducing this confusion by saying that “the Church is above Scripture” because it’s above my interpretation of Scripture.

It is relatively easier (though not always that easy) for me to determine what the Church teaches than to determine what Scripture teaches. If that’s what you are saying, then I agree.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, one should compliment the other in my mind also, and does for me.

I find it difficult to understand in reality the concept of Bible only. Not that I don’t see the arguement, yet truth is, it seems to me most who make this claim are subject to some form of Church. Lutheran are very much involved and promote their church, Baptists and so forth.

Seems when we reach the individual basis then the breakdown occurs from basically strict Blind Faith on the one hand to pretty much in-depth Bible. Yet here too it appears that the debate revolves around coordinating Scripture to fit a form of Christian Congregation.

 

[Contarini]

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

Actually, as I and others have pointed out on this forum multiple times, that’s not where the term originates at all.

More to the point, what I’m saying is that Luther in particular claimed not to be protesting his Catholic theological training on this particular issue, but to be following it. The supreme authority of Scripture was a tenet of medieval scholasticism. Of course, that was in the context of the authority of the Church.

Sola Scriptura isn’t really a “new” teaching so much as it’s what’s left when you lose faith in the Church. In that sense it’s entirely different from sola fide, which is a genuine innovation.

I do not believe that statment by Vatican II is saying what you are claiming.

I don’t think you understand what I am claiming. I think we’re talking past each other.

Now I repeat: That statement by Vatican II does not explicitly state,listen carefully…WRITTEN SCRIPTURE ALONE is SUPREME over the church.

Certainly not. Nor did I.

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.

No dispute there. I’ve pointed this out myself repeatedly on this thread.

The interesting semantic question here is whether we can say “Scripture has authority over the Church” because the Word of God does, even though the Word of God includes “more” than just Scripture. I think there are two parts to this question:

1. Is the relationship between Scripture and the Word of God that of a part to a whole? and if the answer to this question is “yes,” then
2. If Y is part of X, and X has authority over Z, does Y have authority over Z?

I’ll take the second one first, because it’s intrinsically interesting. Could one say, for instance, that the Book of Isaiah has authority over the Church? I think one could. Perhaps it would be a little harder, intuitively, to justify “the Book of Ruth has authority over the Church,” but in principle I think it would be true. Or would it be correct to say that apostolic succession has authority over the Church? I think it would.

So even if the answer to question 1 is “yes,” I would argue that it’s still correct to say that written Scripture has authority over the Church, in the same way that individual bits of Scripture or Tradition have authority over the Church. But of course this would need to be qualified by saying “they have authority as parts of a whole.”

However, I don’t accept this interpretation. I recognize that there are two ways of understanding Catholic teaching here. At the Council of Trent, some folks I believe wanted to say that the Word of God is found “partly” in Scripture and “partly” in Tradition." The language that prevailed was rather that of “both. . . . and” which left unresolved the question of whether Scripture is just part of Tradition or not.

Vatican II’s language seems to me to lean away from the “partly . . . partly” understanding, and certainly some of the major modern Catholic writers on this subject, including folks who were influential at Vatican II like Yves Congar, have rejected this interpretation. It’s pretty common to find contemporary Catholic apologists accepting the “material sufficiency of Scripture.” And many of the Fathers seem to have done so as well (hence the arsenal of prooftexts that some Protestant apologists amass in order to argue, mistakenly, that the Fathers endorsed a full-blown doctrine of Sola Scriptura).

According to the “material sufficiency” position, Scripture and “Tradition” are two modes in which the same divinely revealed truth is conveyed. Hence, the language of part and whole doesn’t apply.

I recognize that this isn’t binding Catholic teaching–Catholics differ among themselves on this point. But on this understanding, it doesn’t make sense to qualify the statement “Scripture has authority over the Church,” any more than it would make sense to qualify the statement “Tradition has authority over the Church.”

Of course, it’s still important to say that Scripture has authority over the Church when rightly interpreted in the context of the Tradition.

But here’s the thing: as I see it, that ought to be the natural, basic meaning of “Scripture.” Scripture in its right and proper sense is Scripture-as-the-written-form-of-Tradition. Hence when speaking to Catholics and assuming the truth of Catholic teaching as set forth in Dei Verbum, I shouldn’t have to make qualifications.

You and others are repeatedly assuming that I’m using “Scripture” in the Protestant sense. But I’m not. And that should have been clear from the way I’ve been using Dei Verbum.

Scripture “alone” is simply Scripture-wrongly-interpreted.

It shouldn’t be necessary to say “when I say Scripture has authority, I don’t mean that mistaken interpretations of Scripture that remove it from its proper theological context have authority.”

Similarly (though the two cases aren’t identical because of the part/whole issue I mentioned above), to say “Vatican II has authority” doesn’t mean “an interpretation of Vatican II that sets it up in opposition to earlier Catholic teaching” has authority. Some Catholics have mistakenly interpreted Vatican II that way. But that’s not the proper way to speak of a Council’s teaching.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Right, one should compliment the other in my mind also, and does for me.

I find it difficult to understand in reality the concept of Bible only. Not that I don’t see the arguement, yet truth is, it seems to me most who make this claim are subject to some form of Church. Lutheran are very much involved and promote their church, Baptists and so forth.

Seems when we reach the individual basis then the breakdown occurs from basically strict Blind Faith on the one hand to pretty much in-depth Bible. Yet here too it appears that the debate revolves around coordinating Scripture to fit a form of Christian Congregation.

Gary,

“Sola Scriptura” doesn’t mean “only the Bible is used” or “only the Bible matters,” except perhaps in the obviously untenable formulations of some fundamentalists.

What it means, most basically, in its “classic” formulations, is that the Bible is the only infallible form in which the Word of God has come to us. Usually some kind of affirmation of the “perspicuity” or “formal sufficiency” of Scripture goes along with that, although I find these concepts rather hard to articulate, let alone defend.

The negative form, I think, is the most defensible. I don’t agree with it, but I understand why Protestants hold it.

Edwin

 

[mackbrislawn]

They both have a supernatural nature–of course different denominations have different ideas about what church is. Some, such as Catholics and Orthodox, at least, think of the church as a supernatural being established by Christ, and is therefore authoritative. Other seem to think of it as a collection of believers.

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.

Yes. Saying scripture is ‘above’ church seems to imply church is derived from scripture. Saying the ‘church is above scripture’ seems to imply that church can negate scripture.
That is my take. So that is why I asked the question, what do these mean?

But in fact what we’re talking about is authority

.
Certainly.

Dei Verbum clearly states that the teaching authority of the Church serves the Word and is not above it.

Yes, that is the purpose of the Church, to serve the Word.

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.

Indeed, the Church must listen to the Word of God. There can be two senses here for the word “church,” one meaning the people of God themselves whose job it is to listen obediently, and the other sense that of the supernatural being headed by Christ, whose job it is to proclaim the Word. The Word is Christ, and the Word is the Head of the Church. Therefore I don’t quit get what is meant when ‘obedient listening to the Word’ 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.
Right.

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.

No, I don’t hear it too much in Catholic usage. That’s why I often use terms such as “people of God,” “household of faith,” “congregation of the faithful,” etc. The point is for both OT and NT the people of God were founded not on scripture, but upon simply the Word.

But not before they heard the Word.

Precisely.

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.

I just don’t see this. The only reason we believe scripture is because of the authority of the household of faith. So when and how Scripture was written is quite to the point.

The Word always had authority over God’s people, always have, and always will have.

Of course it will. Although what is God’s Word has continued to be debated.

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.

Agreed. Now, what is meant by “Church”? The people? Certainly. Christ’s Church? Certainly, since the Word is the head of the Church.

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.

Okay, I didn’t follow all of the thread to really know what you are doing. I saw certain statements I wanted explained, that seemed to me to be saying odd things. Therefore, I don’t know what it is you agree with!

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.

Wow. I had to read carefully through my post to see where I had used ‘may.’ Anyway, it comes when I said, “the Church may use.” By that I meant that the Church has permission to use the apostolic writings in its teaching and preaching endeavors.
It 'rightly bothers Protestants." I guess this is true for both sides–they assume certain things about the other; here you assume “as if the Church had the discretion to accept or reject Scripture.” That was the furthest thing on my mind when I said “may.” We both assume the other means something based upon our prior presumptions.

But, obviously, the Church does not have the discretion to accept or reject Scripture. Not what I said. However, the Church does have the obligation to reject as Scripture those writings not inspired. And the Church decided which writings were inspired and which not.

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.

“Another set of ecclesiastical writings.” I’m sorry–I guess this is another Protestant over-reaction. Just as Catholics over-react to Protestants saying scripture is over Church.
No. But scripture is one tool among others the Church may use in its God-given mandate to proclaim the word to all peoples

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).

Agreed.

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.

 

[stewstew03]

Gary,

“Sola Scriptura” doesn’t mean “only the Bible is used” or “only the Bible matters,” except perhaps in the obviously untenable formulations of some fundamentalists.

What it means, most basically, in its “classic” formulations, is that the Bible is the only infallible form in which the Word of God has come to us. Usually some kind of affirmation of the “perspicuity” or “formal sufficiency” of Scripture goes along with that, although I find these concepts rather hard to articulate, let alone defend.

The negative form, I think, is the most defensible. I don’t agree with it, but I understand why Protestants hold it.

Edwin

If I believed that the Bible was the only source of truth then I, too, would arrive at the “untenable” conclusion that only the Bible matters.

 

[studychristian]

On another thread about Protestantism someone said this and I agree with this. Why would God abandon his Church[Catholicism] for a whole new sect of Christianity[Protestantism].

 

[PRmerger]

On another thread about Protestantism someone said this and I agree with this. Why would God abandon his Church[Catholicism] for a whole new sect of Christianity[Protestantism].

Indeed. Not to mention, which of the tens of thousands of Protestant Christian denominations would he chose?

 

[Carefree_T]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so I apologize if this suggestion is a repeat, but “Heretics” by G.K. Chesterton and it’s counterpart “Orthodoxy” are partly responsible for bringing me to the Church (though I detoured a little bit into the Orthodox Church).

 

[JonNC]

On another thread about Protestantism someone said this and I agree with this. Why would God abandon his Church[Catholicism] for a whole new sect of Christianity[Protestantism].

Who said He abandoned the CC? Catholic Christians are under the same grace. They hear hHis word and receive the sacraments.

Jon

 

[studychristian]

Who said He abandoned the CC? Catholic Christians are under the same grace. They hear hHis word and receive the sacraments.

Jon

I mean, why would God create the RC church only to make a hole new sect of Christianity with 33,000 denominations?

 

[CopticChristian]

I mean, why would God create the RC church only to make a hole new sect of Christianity with 33,000 denominations?

Study,

I have pointed this out to many new members. Stating the 33,000 denominations only draws controversy. There are many non Catholics that refute this and you will spend time defeding this with frustration. I suggest a paradigm of thought that makes more sense.

OHCAC begat the Anglican/Episcopalian that begat the Methodist that begat the holiness movement…from which Pentacostals sprang and many of the non-denominational groups

Baptists are an entity unto themselves, divided among themselves.

Lutherans begat division and from the Lutherans sprang the Evangelical Church of Sweden that begat the Evangelical Free Church in America

Menononites/Amish are a separate stream of thought

Calvinism/Reformed is a seperate stream of thought

If you look at this as streams of thought you will avoid the 33,000 denomination criticism…You can say honestly and with conviction that there are streams of thought with division amongst themselves.

 

[CopticChristian]

On another thread about Protestantism someone said this and I agree with this. Why would God abandon his Church[Catholicism] for a whole new sect of Christianity[Protestantism].

Study,

If you read the letter to the Romans…the Jews were haughty in their belief that they descended from Abraham and Paul pointed out that they, circumcised were no better than the Gentile, circumcised of the heart…Paul says…has God abandoned his people…for don’t you know…pointing out that descending from Abraham was not the point of understanding…rather …by one man sin entered the world and by one man we were made righteous…descendants of Adam…

The OHCAC says that all baptized in the trinitarian formula…and are Christians…and in some mysterious way are part of the Church…so reflect…has God abandoned his people…for as Paul says those in the Covenant are not of the Covenant and if those not circumcised in Pauls day were Gods’ people…the fool says in his heart there is no God…they are all evil all have gone astray…as they eat up “my people”…God is with the generation of the rigtheous…

So for the Jew being circumcised mattered not and imagine being baptized, in the Covenant, of the Covenant and doing less than the Baptized that exist in ecclesial communities, yet part of the Church…has God abandoned His people…? By no means…

For if God is God of Greek, Barbarian, Jew…etc…then God is God of the OHCAC and all those Baptized in the trinitarian formula for God is impartial…

Just a thought…

 

[Roy5]

God made us thinking and curious creatures. Since God and this universe are such mysteries, there was certain to develop a huge array of different religions. This shows hat humankind was seeking to understand our Creator and the Lord’s creation.

 The notion that there is only one true church and that all other religion falls short is the belief of millions of Catholics. Fine. As for me personally, I think we all fall short because we are limited by our status as creatures. Those who want to say that the Lord started one church and the rest are inferior - go ahead. I suspect that some Protestants, and certainly many Muslims and others feel similiarly.

 As for my own view - and I know that some will dismiss this as some form of egotism to think independently in this fashion - I suspect that we all are wrong, that when we reach eternal life we will find Matt. 25 confirmed, that we will discover that (as Christ said) what matters is not doctrine, sacraments, membership in some church, etc. No, what matters then is how we expressed our love for God and for one another, by serving one another. 

 For those who want to think they and their church alone have hold of the essential truth, go for it. I'm sure it helps provide a sense of security in this huge and mysterious world. What does trouble me, however, is when this honest conviction turns into arrogance, hubris and silly judging. Matt. 7:1-2.  Surely, a key ingredient of genuine Christianity is humility - plus an awe before God that acknowledges that he is well beyond human understanding.

 Too often religion is a barrier when true religion should be a bridge.

 

[Contarini]

 The notion that there is only one true church and that all other religion falls short is the belief of millions of Catholics. Fine. As for me personally, I think we all fall short because we are limited by our status as creatures.

Roy, I entirely agree with you. But that’s why a unified Church is important. It’s not about “better” or “worse”–it’s about the need for all of us to be accountable to each other in one community, with the promise of Jesus that, whatever flaws this community may have, it won’t adopt teachings that are downright incompatible with the original revelation.

We will never get there in this world, most likely. But that doesn’t excuse us from working toward this end.

The “exclusivism” of the Catholic Church promotes unity because it forces us to take accountability seriously. The Protestant model simply means that we all go our own ways and wave at each other in a friendly fashion.

The Catholic model, as presently practiced, certainly isn’t perfect either. But its very rigor prevents us from being content with cheap formulas and from substituting cooperation for real unity.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

God made us thinking and curious creatures. Since God and this universe are such mysteries, there was certain to develop a huge array of different religions. This shows hat humankind was seeking to understand our Creator and the Lord’s creation.

 **The notion that there is only one true church and that all other religion falls short is the belief of millions of Catholics.** Fine. As for me personally, I think we all fall short because we are limited by our status as creatures. Those who want to say that the Lord started one church and the rest are inferior - go ahead. I suspect that some Protestants, and certainly many Muslims and others feel similiarly.

 As for my own view - and I know that some will dismiss this as some form of egotism to think independently in this fashion - I suspect that we all are wrong, that when we reach eternal life we will find Matt. 25 confirmed, that we will discover that (as Christ said) what matters is not doctrine, sacraments, membership in some church, etc. No, what matters then is how we expressed our love for God and for one another, by serving one another. 

 For those who want to think they and their church alone have hold of the essential truth, go for it. I'm sure it helps provide a sense of security in this huge and mysterious world. What does trouble me, however, is when this honest conviction turns into arrogance, hubris and silly judging. Matt. 7:1-2.  Surely, a key ingredient of genuine Christianity is humility - plus an awe before God that acknowledges that he is well beyond human understanding.

 **Too often religion is a barrier when true religion should be a bridge./**QUOTE]

Roy,

Your premise needs explanation.

Your agenda is clear.

Guanaphore explained in another posting that the bridge idea is a “claptrap”…and makes no sense.

 

[Contarini]

I mean, why would God create the RC church only to make a hole new sect of Christianity with 33,000 denominations?

That’s not the Protestant premise. Protestants don’t think God “created the RC church.” Protestants think God created one Church, to which we all belong.

And a “sect of Christianity with 33,000 denominations” doesn’t make sense. The 33,000 figure is obviously bogus in the first place, but more to the point Protestantism is not a “sect” but a broad family of religious groups.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Study,

I have pointed this out to many new members. Stating the 33,000 denominations only draws controversy. There are many non Catholics that refute this and you will spend time defeding this with frustration. I suggest a paradigm of thought that makes more sense.

OHCAC begat the Anglican/Episcopalian that begat the Methodist that begat the holiness movement…from which Pentacostals sprang and many of the non-denominational groups

Baptists are an entity unto themselves, divided among themselves.

Lutherans begat division and from the Lutherans sprang the Evangelical Church of Sweden that begat the Evangelical Free Church in America

Menononites/Amish are a separate stream of thought

Calvinism/Reformed is a seperate stream of thought

If you look at this as streams of thought you will avoid the 33,000 denomination criticism…You can say honestly and with conviction that there are streams of thought with division amongst themselves.

Yes, that’s an excellent approach!

Thanks for saying this.

Arguing over just how many denominations there are distracts from obvious point about Protestant disunity.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes, that’s an excellent approach!

Thanks for saying this.

Arguing over just how many denominations there are distracts from obvious point about Protestant disunity.

Edwin

Yep.

GKC