It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[clmowry]

I think that Augustine meant that the Scripture is the paramount authority—**above **councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.

St. Augustine rightly venerates the Sacred Scriptures, as do all Catholics.

That does not however mean he placed them “above” the Church.

There is nothing in Scripture that requires you to pit it against Tradition or the Church.

There is plenty in St. Augustine’s writings that show he believed this to be true as well.

For example we have the following:

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers, and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church." – St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo (On the Trinity, 4,6:10)

Chuck

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that Augustine meant that the Scripture is the paramount authority—**above **councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.

And did Augustine derive all of his doctrine exclusively from scripture?

 

[nuntym]

I think that Augustine meant that the Scripture is the paramount authority—**above **councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.

“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.” Augustine, To Januarius, Epistle 54:1 (A.D. 400).

From catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized"

So even St Augustine is against sola scriptura, from what I understand from above, huh?

 

[Church_Militant]

I think that Augustine meant that the Scripture is the paramount authority—above councils and popes and any tradition

but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.Not so! St… Augustine plainly stated it this way.

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yet again, where is that belief, that scripture is ABOVE and the ultimate authority reside in scripture. We can see multiple places where scripture tells us to take it to the Church and let the Church settle it, but where does scripture say it stands above? And whose interpretation of scripture? Where is that belief contained in scripture?

God Bless,
Maria

Isn’t it just a matter of fact that when one accepts that scripture tells you to take something to the Church, that you are acknowledging that scripture has the ultimate authority? If not, one would no reason to quote scripture as rational for when, where and why one takes something to the church, for if scripture was not the source of authority one would simply not care what scripture said about it. Catholics and non-Catholics alike defer to scripture and cite it for one primary reason, that when there is a difference between human opinions scripture is the final arbitrator. One does not need scripture to tell us that it is, one declares it so when one accepts it as canon – “a measuring standard or rule” (CCC).

Any other authority that any individual or institution has it has because he/she/it has received it from Christ and that act is attested to in scripture. Apart from that authority that scripture conveys, one has no authority of one’s own. We only have conferred authority, not intrinsic authority. We we step outside of that authority which scripture attests that God in Jesus Christ confers on us through his Holy Spirit, and attempt to claim some sort of authority on our own, then we are right back in the Garden and listening to the serpent once again.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Again, it does not come anywhere close to saying something like “everything I want you to know has been written in these 73 (66) books.”]

Nor does Sola Scriptura – as has already been explained in the thread above. To imply a different position relative to SS than is actually held by those who profess it is to create a strawman.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

And did Augustine derive all of his doctrine exclusively from scripture?

St Augustine believed that the understanding and exposition of the Scriptures was the heart of a bishop’s life (Conf. XI,ii,2)

Heresy as a failure to accept the Bible (Conf. III,v,9)

‘I go to feed so that I can give to eat. I am the servant, the bringer of food, not the master of the house. I lay out before you that from which I also draw my life’ and
‘what the Divine Scripture teaches, that contains the sum of Christian learning’
(St. Augustine)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

St. Augustine rightly venerates the Sacred Scriptures, as do all Catholics.

That does not however mean he placed them “above” the Church.

There is nothing in Scripture that requires you to pit it against Tradition or the Church.

There is plenty in St. Augustine’s writings that show he believed this to be true as well.

For example we have the following:

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers, and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church." – St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo (On the Trinity, 4,6:10)

Chuck

What does it mean that Augustine would say that no Christian would decide against Scripture? Does he really mean that if someone were to decide something against scripture that this person would show themselves to not be a Christian, in the same way that if a person decided something against reason that he would be showing himself to not be sober-minded?

This, of course, allows for people to decide many things quite apart from scripture, particularly those things that scripture does not speak about. But it seems that Augustine is saying that no person should go against the teaching of scripture and still dare to call themselves a Christian. Would the Catholic Church agree with Augustine on this point?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isn’t it just a matter of fact that when one accepts that scripture tells you to take something to the Church, that you are acknowledging that scripture has the ultimate authority?

Uh…no.

Scripture points to the Church and not to itself. More than once by the way.

If not, one would no reason to quote scripture as rational for when, where and why one takes something to the church, for if scripture was not the source of authority one would simply not care what scripture said about it.

Uh…no.

We refer to scripture since it is the written form of the Word of God. We refer to scripture since it is the oral form of the Word of God.

We refer to the Magisterium since it was established by Christ.

Catholics and non-Catholics alike defer to scripture and cite it for one primary reason, that when there is a difference between human opinions scripture is the final arbitrator.

Oh…okay.

1. Should we baptize infants? Verses please.
2. Is God a Trinity? Verses please.
3. Does Jesus have one will or two? Verses please.

One does not need scripture to tell us that it is, one declares it so when one accepts it as canon – “a measuring standard or rule” (CCC).

The fact that scripture is A measuring standard is not the same as saying it is THE ONLY rule.

Any other authority that any individual or institution has it has because he/she/it has received it from Christ and that act is attested to in scripture.

Any authority that the Church has came from from Christ LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the first book of the NT was even written.

Apart from that authority that scripture conveys, one has no authority of one’s own. We only have conferred authority, not intrinsic authority. We we step outside of that authority which scripture attests that God in Jesus Christ confers on us through his Holy Spirit, and attempt to claim some sort of authority on our own, then we are right back in the Garden and listening to the serpent once again.

If the Church had no authority prior to the writing of scripture, then there would have been no basis for accepting the authority of the scriptures as being Apostolic.

It was on the basis of the Authority of the Apostles and those who were their disciples that the scriptures themselves were judged to be Apostolic and inspired.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It was on the basis of the Authority of the Apostles and those who were their disciples that the scriptures themselves were judged to be Apostolic and inspired.

That I will grant you.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Any authority that the Church has came from from Christ LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the first book of the NT was even written.

If you’re really rolling on the floor laughing then either you didn’t read carefully, don’t understand the meaning and implication of the word “attested”, or are intentionally being dense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you’re really rolling on the floor laughing then either you didn’t read carefully, don’t understand the meaning and implication of the word “attested”, or are intentionally being dense.

Does the Church need the scriptures to attest to its authority in order for its authority to be legitimate?

Did the Church have authority before the scriptures were written?

 

[MonFrere]

Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed? Additionally, if tradition is God breathed then why can it chan, err I mean evolve?

OK – but I think there’s a lot of things that “God breathed” that are not necessary for my salvation. The chronologies in the book of Chronicles are hardly necessary for my salvation. St. Paul’s letter to Philemon exhorting him to allow his runaway slave to return is certainly a good story, but hardly necessary for my salvation. Can any Protestant name the necessity within each of the 12 minor prophets for salvation? The book of Esther doesn’t even mention the word “God”. I think we could actually abridge the scriptures quite a bit and not lose much in terms of those things that are “necessary for salvation” – in fact, Protestants have this minimized to a great degree.

In fact, lets take the Protestant mantra - Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Story over. Book closed. You really don’t need anything more. Right? If this is all the Protestant had things would probably go much better for them – everything else is just going to confuse things when FAITH ALONE is all one really needs to focus their attention.

If this is all you had AND CATHOLIC TRADITION you would still have the whole Catholic Church in tact. From my view – the Catholic Church doesn’t even need the scriptures to be canonized. The liturgy would probably function as it is today without the added aid of the dogmatic authorization of the Catholic Church. We could internally function just fine and we would just read the letters of Paul, the Gospels and Acts as we presently do WITHOUT any canon. And we just might include St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians too. I’m simply stating this to demonstrate how absolutely TRADITION is woven into the fabric of the Catholic Church. TRADITION SAVES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM ERROR AND TRADITION IS WHY OUR DOCTRINES DON’T (CANNOT) CHANGE. The Bible Alone has not provided the Protestant Movement with the same protection. The only consistent teaching in Protestantism is AMAZINGLY THEIR TRADITION – sola fide, and sola scriptura. This is the POWER of tradition. Everything else in Protestantism has been up for grabs - doctrinally - but their tradition has stayed in tact. I think that’s an amazing fact.

Just my thoughts.

MonFrere

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed? Additionally, if tradition is God breathed then why can it chan, err I mean evolve?

Do you seriously have a problem with the idea that doctrine develops?

1. Did the Apostles understand the Trinity as fully as we do?
2. Did the Apostles understand that Jesus had two wills - one human and one divine?

Tradition can develop as can our understanding of the written form of Tradition, the scriptures, but Tradition cannot conflict with or contradict either written or oral Tradition.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Does the Church need the scriptures to attest to its authority in order for its authority to be legitimate?

Did the Church have authority before the scriptures were written?

I said the act of that authority being given is attested to in scripture. That is how that we today know that those who claim to have authority actually have it. If they claim to have it, but it is not attested to in scripture, then we only have their own word on it. I.e., they would be testifying regarding themselves and that would make their testimony invalid (see John 5:31). We even see recorded in the narrative of scripture just how important it was that the Apostles attest for one another. So, though before I was not saying that the Church needs scripture to attest to its authority, but only that it was attested to in scripture, you have actually caused me to see that it is indeed needed today. Given that Christ and the apostles are all gone today, if we accepted that the church simply was declaring its own authority, it would be exactly what Jesus spoke of in John 5. Therefore, YES, it is important that we have the attestation of scripture for any who would claim authority today.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The only consistent teaching in Protestantism is AMAZINGLY THEIR TRADITION – sola fide, and sola scriptura. This is the POWER of tradition. Everything else in Protestantism has been up for grabs - doctrinally - but their tradition has stayed in tact. I think that’s an amazing fact.

Just my thoughts.

MonFrere

Interesting insight.

Would you concur that this has also taken place within Catholicism? For instance the reason for the Council at Ephesus and Chalcedon was because despite previous Councils met for the purpose of providing “clear” statements on the person of Christ, the doctrinal understandings of the Church were, in fact, still very much in the process of being developed over time, and were not a static entity, but rather a work in progress.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I said the act of that authority being given is attested to in scripture.

The early converts did not need the scriptures to tell them that the Apostles had authority, did they? Why do we?

No, the idea that we need the scriptures to tell us that the Church has authority is BALONEY.

Need proof?

You have the scriptures, and they have not convinced you that the Catholic Church is the authoritative, true Church, have they? :nope:

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You have the scriptures, and they have not convinced you that the Catholic Church is the authoritative, true Church, have they? :nope:

Indeed they have not. Why not? Because while the words you use to advance your position are in the Bible, the point you claim they are making is not one that I am able to see in them.

But at least you claim that the authority the Church is substantiated in the Scriptures. Can you imagine trying to advance your claim for the authority of the Church to speak ex cathedra completely devoid of the use of scripture? How many Catholics would even accept it then? Already you have Catholics who argue that the Church is wrong on issues such as abortion, women clergy, etc. How many Catholics would simply choose to go their own way and ignore the Church’s views as a matter of personal opinion if the Church didn’t at least have what Catholics accept as the support of scripture behind it?

 

[MonFrere]

Interesting insight.

Would you concur that this has also taken place within Catholicism? For instance the reason for the Council at Ephesus and Chalcedon was because despite previous Councils met for the purpose of providing “clear” statements on the person of Christ, the doctrinal understandings of the Church were, in fact, still very much in the process of being developed over time, and were not a static entity, but rather a work in progress.

I’m an not a scholar on these issues but what I give us is based upon my reading of these thing the past 10 years since my reversion to the Catholic faith back in 2000. The Catholic Church councils are actually very very precise in their language when they state things formally in Church documents. They will say how far any idea can go and were the idea cannot go. Often in history it is the HERETICS that bring the Church together to study a point (or points) of doctrine to bring further refinement to the points in question. To be a little bit hyperbolic - heretics has served the Church well.

The Canon is one of those points that needed clarification in the early Church. The Church was moving along very well without any declared canon UNTIL HERETICS e.g. the gnostics took scriptures and did a huge cut and paste of those parts that conformed to their gnosticism. With the confusion FROM THE OUTSIDE of the Church there was a need “within” the Church for clarity in the canon. So, this is how the canon was decided upon. Also, the real purpose of the scriptures for the Church in the early days was for choosing LITURGICAL TEXTS. This is where the TRADITION OF THE CHURCH was passed down to the laity. The main place where the early Christians got “their bible” was in the liturgy. This was also one of the major reasons for sacred art in the Church; especially demonstrated in stained glass - to bring the illiterate in touch with the great stories of the scriptures. Personally, I think it’s a very revealing point that the Church did NOT think ONLY scripture should be displayed in sacred art. God was ever at work in his people and in the New Covenant God was still dramatically at work in his people and performing great miracles among his people. So THE STORY CONTINUES in the New Testament church with the lives of the Saints and their heroic virtues they displayed with the grace and power of God. This is very dismaying to me about Protestants in that with the the STORY STOPS with the writing of St. John’s Apocalypse. No more great miracles, no more salvation history being written, no more great works of God on display in spite of the fact that Jesus told His disciples that even great miracles than He did would be accomplished through them. The Catholic Church CONTINUES THE STORY in a very seamless fashion in the liturgy and is absorbed into the memory of the Church.

Sorry for rambling, but it’s getting late …

MonFrere

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Do you seriously have a problem with the idea that doctrine develops?
Tradition can conflict with or contradict either written or oral Tradition.

Randy, I have a problem with certain connotation of definition you give regarding doctrinal development; with the assumption that there is a substantial development of dogma, so that it changes radically in the course of time (Liberal Protestant and Modernism concepts).
The Vatican Council condemned this:
‘If anybody says that by reason of the progress of science, a meaning must be given to dogmas of the Church other than that which the Church understood and understands them to have let him be anathema.’
This meaning of development of dogma “makes dogma a reed, which is driven hither and thither by the wind” (Pope Pius XII)

The Scripture revealing the unchangability of dogma Ps. 116:2 (‘The truth of the Lord remaineth forever’)
and
Mk 13: 31 ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my word shall not pass’

The Catholic sense of the development of dogma is more organic, ‘with the progress of times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased’ (St Gregory the Great)

Dogma: **With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. **