It's NOT in the Bible

[SteveGC]

The Catholic Church believes that nothing it teaches/does contradicts scripture, correct?

Correct

And if someone were to teach/do something that the Catholic Church believes contradicts scripture, the Catholic Church would be quick to condemn that teaching/practice, correct?

Not quite. The Church does not use Scripture alone as the measuring stick. Certainly no Truth will be contradicted by it, but the measure of the truth or falsehood of a claim, or teaching, is not by an investigation into Scripture to see what it says. The measuring stick is this - does it originate from, and/or conform to, the deposit of faith?
Deposit of Faith = the entirety of Jesus Christ’s revelation as passed to successive generations in the form of Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
This is the measuring stick. The written and oral Tradition of The Church.

That is exactly what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura does not mean “everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in the Bible” as the OP states.

Right, it means that the authenticity of everything must be measured by Scripture alone, which is also incorrect. Which is why the Church is not SS.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is exactly what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura does not mean “everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in the Bible” as the OP states.

Apparently

People can believe anything they want and do. The reformation was a systematic dismantling of the Church Christ built. Men decided what canons they did or did not need, what aspects of worship they did or did not need, what tradition they did or did not need etc. This continued till today when there was nothiing left but the Bible. And now those same men argue over what the Bible does or does not say through Sola Scriptura.

Basic re-run of pre Christ Israel it seems to me.

Profound to observe actually in a pick and choose Theology of what one feels is relevant to God. Let alone ignore History.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Correct
Not quite. The Church does not use Scripture alone as the measuring stick. Certainly no Truth will be contradicted by it, but the measure of the truth or falsehood of a claim, or teaching, is not by an investigation into Scripture to see what it says. The measuring stick is - does it originate from the deposit of faith? Deposit of Faith = the entirety of Jesus Christ’s revelation as passed to successive generations in the form of Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

So the Church and its teachings do not necessarily have to be subject to the scriptures where the scriptures speak authoritatively? In other words, hypothetically, the Church could decide that something is true that explicitly contradicts scripture. Scripture would simply be a recommendation because their authority (God’s authority) is removed/diminished?

It would seem to me that the Catholic Church is subject to the authority of the scriptures because, to use our previous example of adultery, the Church could not come out and say that adultery is no longer a sin. However, on issues which aren’t handled explicitly by the scriptures (i.e. contraception) the Church is free to exercise its own authority. Right?

Right, it means that the authenticity of everything must be measured by Scripture alone, which is also incorrect. Which is why the Church is not SS.

By the definition you list, I agree, that is incorrect. It means that it is the final authority where the authority is exercised. It does not mean that it is the only authority for every decision.

 

[Zundrah]

With protestantism, I suppose that just for the sake of argument it really could be found in the bible. Since you could whip out any line and proclaim an accurate interpretation while saying the Catholic view on it is wrong.

 

[Nicea325]

So the Church and its teachings do not necessarily have to be subject to the scriptures where the scriptures speak authoritatively? In other words, hypothetically, the Church could decide that something is true that explicitly contradicts scripture. Scripture would simply be a recommendation because their authority (God’s authority) is removed/diminished?

It would seem to me that the Catholic Church is subject to the authority of the scriptures because, to use our previous example of adultery, the Church could not come out and say that adultery is no longer a sin. However, on issues which aren’t handled explicitly by the scriptures (i.e. contraception) the Church is free to exercise its own authority. Right?

By the definition you list, I agree, that is incorrect. It means that it is the final authority where the authority is exercised. It does not mean that it is the only authority for every decision.

How can Christ Church:

Eph: 1-22-23 (NKJV)
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the **fullness of Him **who fills all in all.

be the subject to the authority of the scriptures,which needed an external source (church) to determine their ( the scriptures) authority? How can the cause (canonized Bible) be above the effect (Church?)

 

[SteveGC]

So the Church and its teachings do not necessarily have to be subject to the scriptures where the scriptures speak authoritatively? In other words, hypothetically, the Church could decide that something is true that explicitly contradicts scripture. Scripture would simply be a recommendation because their authority (God’s authority) is removed/diminished?

The Scriptures do not speak authoritatively without the accompaniment of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. What I’m trying to say is that each of the 3 need the other 2. Not one of them is the final authority. They ALL are together. It’s not that the Church could decide something is true that contradicts Scripture, it’s that that is an impossibility. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from this error. All 3 in unison form our earthly authority, under Christ.

It would seem to me that the Catholic Church is subject to the authority of the scriptures because, to use our previous example of adultery, the Church could not come out and say that adultery is no longer a sin. However, on issues which aren’t handled explicitly by the scriptures (i.e. contraception) the Church is free to exercise its own authority. Right?

Explicitness and implicitness are of no import. The Church uses both Tradition and Scripture to claim (magisterially) that adultery and contraception are sinful. Scripture must be read under the light of the Tradition from whence it came.

By the definition you list, I agree, that is incorrect. It means that it is the final authority where the authority is exercised. It does not mean that it is the only authority for every decision.

In terms of the Church, Scripture alone is never the final authority.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

How can Christ Church:

Eph: 1-22-23 (NKJV)
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the **fullness of Him **who fills all in all.

be the subject to the authority of the scriptures,which needed an external source (church) to determine their ( the scriptures) authority? How can the cause (canonized Bible) be above the effect (Church?)

Good question. Because, if we believe the scriptures to be the words of God and not just a bunch of stories or statements people made up saying that God said ______, when God makes a statement within the scriptures, would it not be the truth that no one or group/church could contradict and be correct? Who’s authority could be greater than or equal to God’s? That is why the Catholic Church has to be subject to scripture [God] where scripture [God] has spoken authoritatively.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

With protestantism, I suppose that just for the sake of argument it really could be found in the bible. Since you could whip out any line and proclaim an accurate interpretation while saying the Catholic view on it is wrong.

This is true of any text. Any statement taken out of context can be easily be misinterpreted.

STATEMENT: Do not eat oranges!

If this were to appear in the Bible as a verse, and the verse was taken in isolation, it might be interpreted to mean that we are ordered, via commandment expressed in the Bible, not to eat oranges.

FULL STATEMENT: Do not eat oranges! This year’s crop is spoiled, and there have been multiple fatalities linked to eating this crop of oranges.

We would likely infer something else from that full statement.

• or -

FULL STATEMENT: I am your earthly king and ruler! I command that all good things are mine alone. You may not share in my inheritance. All know that I love oranges - they are my favorite fruit. Therefore I say to you: Do not eat oranges!

Another very different story with a very different connotation.

Yet, both full statements include the original statement: Do not eat oranges!

Logically, can one see the potential problem with teaching from a sola scriptura approach.

Further, we likely need not go into the multitude of OT verses that, taken literally and out of historical context, would have some rather unintended outcomes in relation to modern society and our understanding of Plan of Salvation, as now completed in the Savior.

 

[Nicea325]

Good question. Because, if we believe the scriptures to be the words of God and not just a bunch of stories or statements people made up saying that God said ______, when God makes a statement within the scriptures, would it not be the truth that no one or group/church could contradict and be correct? Who’s authority could be greater than or equal to God’s? That is why the Catholic Church has to be subject to scripture [God] where scripture [God] has spoken authoritatively.

False.But where does God every say: Only written words contain my Word. God’s Word cannot lie with His Mystical Body (Eph:1-22-23) also known as the Church? Jesus founded His Church…not the Bible. In fact the Bible says the opposite of what you present. Where does the Pillar of Truth lie? The Church or the Bible?

Likewise,where in the Bible does it ever state it is an authority? The Bible decided all on it is own or did Christ Body determine it is a source of authority?

The false dichotomy you present is very common: The Church versus the Bible. It is not an either/or but both/and.

 

[TimothyH]

Well it was in the 400 or so they think they became inspired, but officially at the coucil of Trent. Dont forget Luther did have them in his first bible also. Luther had no intention of leaving the CC, they excommunicated him.

But really does any of this matter when they added the books. Why did they add them and find them inspired since the Jewish people didn’t find them inspried as they were in greek right.

Luther excommunicated himself when he got married.

Remember that Luther was an Augustinian monk. It was against the rule of his order to marry and any Augustinian monk who married was automatically excommunicated by his own act.

Luther married knowing full well what the consequences were.

It was he who excommunicated himself.

-Tim-

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

The Scriptures do not speak authoritatively without the accompaniment of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. What I’m trying to say is that each of the 3 need the other 2. Not one of them is the final authority. They ALL are together. It’s not that the Church could decide something is true that contradicts Scripture, it’s that that is an impossibility. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from this error. All 3 in unison form our earthly authority, under Christ.

Explicitness and implicitness are of no import. The Church uses both Tradition and Scripture to claim (magisterially) that adultery and contraception are sinful. Scripture must be read under the light of the Tradition from whence it came.

In terms of the Church, Scripture alone is never the final authority.

I understand completely what you are saying but I disagree—I guess that’s why I’m not Catholic. God *can *speak authoritatively via scripture without any accompaniment.

The reason the Church couldn’t decide that something is against scripture is because it is being subject to the scriptures, perhaps at the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Nicea325]

I understand completely what you are saying but I disagree—I guess that’s why I’m not Catholic. God *can *speak authoritatively via scripture without any accompaniment.

The reason the Church couldn’t decide that something is against scripture is because it is being subject to the scriptures, perhaps at the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Okay…where in the Bible does it ever state it is an authority? If it is the sole rule of authority as you claim and the church is her subject,please show me chapter and verse where it mentions a 27 NT canon?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

False.But where does God every say: Only written words contain my Word. God’s Word cannot lie with His Mystical Body (Eph:1-22-23) also known as the Church? Jesus founded His Church…not the Bible. In fact the Bible says the opposite of what you present. Where does the Pillar of Truth lie? The Church or the Bible?

Likewise,where in the Bible does it ever state it is an authority? The Bible decided all on it is own or did Christ Body determine it is a source of authority?

The false dichotomy you present is very common: The Church versus the Bible. It is not an either/or but both/and.

Never did I say that God’s words are only written and never would I agree with that, but I would agree that what is written is God’s word. And, therefore, if it is God’s word, its authority is obvious and doesn’t need to be self-defined. Contradiction to scriptures would mean would the one doing the contradicting is in error. The Catholic Church would surely agree with this which is why it does not contradict its interpretation of scripture.

[Man/the church/Church/Christ’s Body] did not give the scriptures authority. God Himself is the authority through the scriptures. [Man/the church/Church/Christ’s Body] simply affirmed this.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Okay…where in the Bible does it ever state it is an authority? If it is the sole rule of authority as you claim and the church is her subject,please show me chapter and verse where it mentions a 27 NT canon?

The answer to your first question is in the post above. The answer to your second is that I do not claim that the Bible is the sole rule of authority.

 

[Nicea325]

Never did I say that God’s words are only written and never would I agree with that, but I would agree that what is written is God’s word. And, therefore, if it is God’s word, its authority is obvious and doesn’t need to be self-defined. Contradiction to scriptures would mean would the one doing the contradicting is in error. The Catholic Church would surely agree with this which is why it does not contradict its interpretation of scripture.

[Man/the church/Church/Christ’s Body] did not give the scriptures authority. God Himself is the authority through the scriptures. [Man/the church/Church/Christ’s Body] simply affirmed this.

And the CC has never once said or taught the Bible does not contain the Word of God. Your bolded statement is false. If it does not need to be self-defined,then why don’t our current Bibles contain many more books? Many others were written and were considered scripture by specific communities. St.Clement’s Letter to the Corithians was read at Sunday Masses for centuries and was accepted as inspired scripture. Thus,if the Bible is God’s Word and does not need to be self-defined,then why would the Church have to determine a fixed canon?

 

[Nicea325]

The answer to your first question is in the post above. The answer to your second is that I do not claim that the Bible is the sole rule of authority.

By default you do because you specifically stated Christ Church is subject to the authority of the Scriptures. How does one separate God’s Word (Written Word) from His Body (Church) which also contains the pillar of Truth.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

And the CC has never once said or taught the Bible does not contain the Word of God. Your bolded statement is false. If it does not need to be self-defined,then why don’t our current Bibles contain many more books? Many others were written and were considered scripture by specific communities. St.Clement’s Letter to the Corithians was read at Sunday Masses for centuries and was accepted as inspired scripture. Thus,if the Bible is God’s Word and does not need to be self-defined,then why would the Church have to determine a fixed canon?

The authority of God’s word does not need to be defined. This is not a discussion about canonicity. Let’s say we agree 100% on what the canon is and we agree that it is made up of God’s word. Its authority must be self-evident because no one or group has authority greater than God’s.

 

[SteveGC]

I understand completely what you are saying but I disagree—I guess that’s why I’m not Catholic. God *can *speak authoritatively via scripture without any accompaniment.

Sure, He can speak authoritatively, but is that authority understood? What good is authority in a sea of ignorance? No one is saying God is not authoritative. But authority is meaningless unless that which is decreed authoritatively is correctly interpreted and understood. So we can go on and on all day about how God is the final authority - no problem at all there. And we can even say He speaks authoritatively through the written Word. Sure. But you can’t stop there. You have to acknowledge the need for correct understanding, and more to the point, a universal understanding. I might begin to agree with you if it happened to also be that those who held to SS all held the same understanding of that which is contained inside it. But that is not the case is it? In fact, the disunity of Christianity is caused by this mistaken belief in unaccompanied authority of the written Word. It can only speak authoritatively if there is no debate about that which it says, and even then, universal agreement does not define objective truth. Thus, it can only speak both authoritatively AND inerrantly if it is interpreted by those entrusted and empowered by Christ Himself to do so, and utilized by those who submit to this authority and do not stray from the framework of the deposit of faith in their reading of it.

The reason the Church couldn’t decide that something is against scripture is because it is being subject to the scriptures, perhaps at the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No. It cannot decide on something that scripture is against because the Church IS the Tradition within which Sacred Scripture came to be a treasure of Christianity, and that Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from inerrantly interpreting the written word and from passing down oral tradition regarding matters of faith and morals. Again, the Church is NOT subject to the Scriptures ALONE.

 

[vsedriver]

No. Contraception is either sinful for all or sinful for none. My feelings one way or the other will not change God’s opinion. However, since God chose not to be explicit on whether or not it is a sin, it is left to opinion on whether it actually is or is not.

who’s opinion?

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

By default you do because you specifically stated Christ Church is subject to the authority of the Scriptures. How does one separate God’s Word (Written Word) from His Body (Church) which also contains the pillar of Truth.

I don’t say any such thing explicitly or by default. There is a difference between the words “sole/alone” and “final”. God is the final authority of the universe. Therefore, if He says something (for example, via the scriptures), it is true and the Catholic Church is subject to that authority.