Magisterium vs. sola scripture

[fhansen]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that it has a body of doctrine that is in addition to scripture. It seems to me that the debate over praying to saints, the nature of the sacraments, the authority of the church, ETC. really boils down to whether or not this body of tradition that is in addition to the bible is legitimate or not. Can anyone recommend some books on this subject? Specifically how the church can claim to have a body of authoritative tradition in addition to the bible and what is the basis for that authority?

Thanks for your time

Sacred Tradition is simply the lived, historical experience of the Church, something Protestant Churches have no recourse to, which is another way of saying they have no means to be true church, to possess the fullness of truth, the full “deposit of faith”, that was given to the Church Jesus established in the beginning. And, in fact, the writing of Scripture itself can be said to be part of Church Tradition.

Here’s an example of Church Tradition in action, where Scripture also comes into play. Many Protestant churches deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, while others agree with that doctrine in some manner or another. Scripture can be pausibly enough argued to support either position although the literal reading is much more supportive of the RP. But the CC naturally draws on her wellspring of Tradition, what she’s simply practiced since time immemorial, to know the meaning of Jesus’ words. And the ECFs, as well, provide additional support, being unanimous in their reverence of the Eucharist as the CC reveres it, in holding to the understanding of Jesus’ real presence there.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;11161419]Well, the Magisterium is all the Bishops of the Church in union with the Pope. Why do you say not all bishops?

Not all the bishops, not all the patriarchates, are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Anyway, the Magisterium when teaching doctrine on matters of Faith and morals is infallible.

This is the Catholic view. There are others who claim the same infallibility. Who is right?

You still haven’t really defined who the “church” is that decides your doctrines. Who are these people that write the “confessions.” You may hold some beliefs in common with Early councils and creeds of the Catholic Church, but that is not something distinctly Lutheran.

Yes, I did. The confessions are the documents of the Lutheran Reformation, most notably the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Small Catechism.
We hold all the beliefs of the creeds, and the 7 councils. That this isn’t distinctly Lutheran is because we are part of the Church Catholic and share that early Church history with others, including Catholics and Orthodox.

Maybe you are content not to know who is deciding your doctrine, but I know that would never work for me.

I’m quite content knowing the doctrine of the Church, and from whence it came.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

A better way to approach this subject is by asking:
Magisterium vs. WHATEVER EVERY SECT NEEDS SCRIPTURE TO BE
Many sects of Christianity out there, many MANY interpretations of many parts in
Scripture, (being sarcastic now) Why need a body of bishops and popes to tell us
what it all means?

When one has no authoritative head of the Church, that one is free to interpret the
Bible in anyway he/she wishes. Has the thousands upon thousands of sects with-
in Christianity taught anybody anything?

Go with the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, it will save one the hassle
of dealing with all the 33,000 different splinter Christian denominations out there.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11161750]A better way to approach this subject is by asking:
Magisterium vs. WHATEVER EVERY SECT NEEDS SCRIPTURE TO BE
Many sects of Christianity out there, many MANY interpretations of many parts in
Scripture, (being sarcastic now) Why need a body of bishops and popes to tell us
what it all means?

Yes. I see the sarcasm. The problem is it minimizes the fact that people really do believe what they believe about scripture.

When one has no authoritative head of the Church, that one is free to interpret the Bible in anyway he/she wishes. Has the thousands upon thousands of sects with-
in Christianity taught anybody anything?

I don’t know about the thousands upon thousands +2, but I was catechized in the Christian faith, using initially The Small Catechism, followed by other parts of the confessions. Now, whether you agree with what I’ve been taught isn’t the point. Virtually all Christian communities or communions teach their members. The Catholic Catechism says, “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”. There must be some teaching going on for this to be the case.
Further, were I ever to “swim the Tiber”, I would have to give the Lutheran Church credit for the swimming lessons.

Go with the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, it will save one the hassle of dealing with the hassle of dealing with all the 33,000 different splinter Christian denominations out there

See, here’s the problem. I don’t have “the hassle of dealing with all the 33,000 different splinter Christian denominations out there”. I’m a member of only one communion, not 33,002. So, what the others are doing doesn’t regularly interfere with me.
The hassle would occur if I were to decide to convert. Would I become Catholic in communion with one patriarch, or Orthodox in communion with the rest?
(A bit of sarcasm in that last sentence. )

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Not all the bishops, not all the patriarchates, are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

That is correct. That is why I said the Magisterium which teaches infallibly is ALL of the bishops in union with the Pope. But thanks for clearing that up.

This is the Catholic view. There are others who claim the same infallibility. Who is right?

I have never heard of any other church claiming the same infallibility. Who is doing this other than the Catholic Church?

Yes, I did. The confessions are the documents of the Lutheran Reformation, most notably the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Small Catechism.

Certainly those documents have authors. It is THOSE AUTHORS that are defining doctrine, not the documents themselves.

 

[JonNC]

That is correct. That is why I said the Magisterium which teaches infallibly is ALL of the bishops in union with the Pope. But thanks for clearing that up.

I have never heard of any other church claiming the same infallibility. Who is doing this other than the Catholic Church?

Certainly those documents have authors. It is THOSE AUTHORS that are defining doctrine, not the documents themselves.

Orthodoxy, or so I’m told.

It is indeed, along with the teachings and teachers of the early Church, using scripture as the final norm.

Jon

 

[ezeekl]

There is no laying on of hands.

I don’t think there needs to be a laying on of hands. It is not an ordination but rather a delegation of a bishop’s authority. Any bishop can delegate authority to a priest. Usually that authority is limited to the sacraments of Reconciliation, the Eucharist, Last Rites and Marriage. Baptism can be administered by anyone. Usually the Bishop will reserve for himself the administration of the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.

Actually, there were bishops in Scandinavia that became Lutheran. I don’t know about other protestant communions.

I have heard other Lutherans say this but when I asked them for names and dates I got silence. If you would be so kind to provide the necessary documentation

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

The Catholic Church, indeed, might consider our orders invalid. We respectfully disagree, and do not hold to the belief that one must have permission from the Bishop of Rome to ordain.

A self serving statement if there ever was one. Not only that but it is flat out wrong. There is no requirement that permission from the pope is necessary to ordain. Any bishop can ordain of his own authority.

Actually, there have been quite a few. However, most have gone through a full ordination, as opposed to a conditional ordination, from what I understand.

A few, “quite a few”; at least we agree on the number being few not many.

No one is infallible. My purpose for mentioning Mathison was because he referenced Oberman. I don’t know about Protestantism, but in Lutheranism interpretation is up to the Church in terms of doctrine, not the individual. The morphing that’s taken place is in the latter groups and communions, who have changed it into solo scriptura, excluding creed and Tradition. The Lutheran practice is the same now as it was in the 1500’s. Sola means only, as in: scripture is the only final norm. That is the meaning of sola scriptura, and has always been.

So sola scriptura has always been sola fini scriptura? And what about this:

"Being a Lutheran is being a person who believes the truths of God’s Word, the Holy Bible, as they are correctly explained and taught in the Book of Concord. To do so is to confess the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Genuine Lutherans, confessional Lutherans, dare to insist that “All doctrines should conform to the standards [the Lutheran Confessions] set forth above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith” (FC Ep. RN, 6).

Sounds to me like the FINAL norm is the Book of Concord for it says what scripture means. Sounds to me like Lutherans have taken the Magisterium and reduced it to a book.

Of course I believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I believe the confessions, while not infallible, are a right reflection of the truth of scripture. They are not at the level of scripture, no human writing is.

Believing does not make it so. People once believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. The confessions are fallible and if that being the case then you might be believing in untruth. I think you are and I have the infallible word of a Church Council to relie on. You do relie on Church councils do you not? I mean you accept the doctrine of the Trinity. That did not come from scripture but rather from Church councils.

 

[JonNC]

=ezeekl;11162256]I don’t think there needs to be a laying on of hands. It is not an ordination but rather a delegation of a bishop’s authority. Any bishop can delegate authority to a priest. Usually that authority is limited to the sacraments of Reconciliation, the Eucharist, Last Rites and Marriage. Baptism can be administered by anyone. Usually the Bishop will reserve for himself the administration of the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.

IOW, presbyter ordination is valid.

I have heard other Lutherans say this but when I asked them for names and dates I got silence. If you would be so kind to provide the necessary documentation

I frankly don’t have it at my fingertips, but it is out there if you are interested. Its historical fact. I’m sure that, were Rome to speak on the issue, however, they would say the orders are invalid.

A self serving statement if there ever was one. Not only that but it is flat out wrong. There is no requirement that permission from the pope is necessary to ordain. Any bishop can ordain of his own authority.

Apparently from the statement above, there are times. It isn’t self serving at all. we respectfully disagree.

A few, “quite a few”; at least we agree on the number being few not many.

Yes. It hasn’t been many.

So sola scriptura has always been sola fini scriptura? And what about this:

"Being a Lutheran is being a person who believes the truths of God’s Word, the Holy Bible, as they are correctly explained and taught in the Book of Concord. To do so is to confess the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Genuine Lutherans, confessional Lutherans, dare to insist that “All doctrines should conform to the standards [the Lutheran Confessions] set forth above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith” (FC Ep. RN, 6).

No. Because the Book of Concord is subject to scripture. In turn we are subject to the BoC

Sounds to me like the FINAL norm is the Book of Concord for it says what scripture means. Sounds to me like Lutherans have taken the Magisterium and reduced it to a book.

No. There is still a need for the Church, in its teaching role.

Believing does not make it so. People once believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. The confessions are fallible and if that being the case then you might be believing in untruth. I think you are and I have the infallible word of a Church Council to relie on. You do relie on Church councils do you not? I mean you accept the doctrine of the Trinity. That did not come from scripture but rather from Church councils.

Well, the teaching comes from scripture. The doctrine from the councils.

There are things in Catholic teaching I disagree with, but I certainly don’t characterize those things as similar to people believing the world was flat. I tend to be a little more respectful than that. But that’s me.

Jon

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
=ezeekl;11162256]I don’t think there needs to be a laying on of hands. It is not an ordination but rather a delegation of a bishop’s authority. Any bishop can delegate authority to a priest. Usually that authority is limited to the sacraments of Reconciliation, the Eucharist, Last Rites and Marriage. Baptism can be administered by anyone. Usually the Bishop will reserve for himself the administration of the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.

IOW, presbyter ordination is valid.

Only with the delegation of authority. Without that delegation of authorrity it is invalid.

 

[Fragile]

Something R.C. Sproul once said gave me pause; “yes, that is my interpretation of scripture, but how do you know that I’m wrong?”

That’s a good question, how do I know he is right or wrong on any given doctrine/interpretation…by my exegetical prowess, illumination, because my denomination/pastor says so…? What if there is an authority outside ourselves to determine the matter…

 

[TRH1292]

Something R.C. Sproul once said gave me pause; “yes, that is my interpretation of scripture, but how do you know that I’m wrong?”

That’s a good question, how do I know he is right or wrong on any given doctrine/interpretation…by my exegetical prowess, illumination, because my denomination/pastor says so…? What if there is an authority outside ourselves to determine the matter…

We would have to say he is wrong because he contradicts the teaching of the Pope who has the keys to the kingdom, all the bishops in union with him, the unanimous consent of the Church fathers, and the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church for 2000 years. All of which shows that his interpretations of scripture is erroneous.

 

[Fragile]

Well, they’re not all wrong, not even by Catholic standards.

 

[PoorKnight]

So wait… the Book of Concord is subject to the Bible, but the BoC says it judges whether or not something out of the Bible is doctrine or dogma?

I’m not an expert in logic, but this sounds very circular…

At the end of this thought process should be the answer though: how do you know what books belong in the Bible?

If you accept the Roman Catholic Church councils then I ask if you accept the deuterocaniconicals (sp?)?

If not, do you accept Luther’s version… which version? The version he wanted (minus the deuterocaniconicals and minus Hebrews, James and Revelation) or the one he eventually translated with the “apocrypha” shoved to the back, or the one everyone credits him with (66 books)?

And under what authority do you claim those books as being the correct number of books?

God Bless

 

[PoorKnight]

Also, I forgot to add, in studying different groups that adhere to it, there is no “one” definition of Sola Scriptura and they argue over what it actually means… I used to be a part of some of those arguments.

I’ve found at least 4 differnet categories… there seems to be at least two of them represented by different people here.

 

[pablope]

IOW, presbyter ordination is valid.

Jon

According to whom, Jon? Can you cite a church council or pope or any bishop ever stating this is the norm?

 

[pablope]

Something R.C. Sproul once said gave me pause; “yes, that is my interpretation of scripture, but how do you know that I’m wrong?”

That’s a good question, how do I know he is right or wrong on any given doctrine/interpretation…by my exegetical prowess, illumination, because my denomination/pastor says so…? What if there is an authority outside ourselves to determine the matter…

From the example of Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Then from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[JonNC]

According to whom, Jon? Can you cite a church council or pope or any bishop ever stating this is the norm?

No, I can’t. That’s what some Catholic posters have said here.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PoorKnight;11168236]So wait… the Book of Concord is subject to the Bible, but the BoC says it judges whether or not something out of the Bible is doctrine or dogma?

I’m not an expert in logic, but this sounds very circular…

Much less circular than the pope is infallible ex cathedra because the pope infallibly said so.
The BoC is subject to scripture because scripture is the final norm. Al teachers, doctrines, etc., are accountable to scripture. Hermeneutics, OTOH, is a practice of the Church, and the BoC is a document of the Church.

At the end of this thought process should be the answer though: how do you know what books belong in the Bible?
If you accept the Roman Catholic Church councils then I ask if you accept the deuterocaniconicals (sp?)?

Well, we don’t accept the Roman Catholic councils, but we do accept the seven ecumenical councils of the early Church.
Accept the DC’s as what? Part of scripture? Sure. Even Luther did. We also recognize that from the time of St. Jerome up until the Council of Trent, there were Catholics who disputed them. We take that dispute into account.

If not, do you accept Luther’s version… which version? The version he wanted (minus the deuterocaniconicals and minus Hebrews, James and Revelation) or the one he eventually translated with the “apocrypha” shoved to the back, or the one everyone credits him with (66 books)?

Some factual errors here.

1. If you have a source that shows where Luther claims he did not want the NT Antilegomena included, please present it. I have asked this numerous times, and no one seems to have it.
2. Luther’s translation, once completed, ALWAYS had 74 books. There is no Luther translation that had 66.
3. The DC’s do not appear “shoved to the back” in Luther’s translation. They appear between the OT and NT. Considering that, historically, that’s the period of time they cover, it isn’t an unreasonable placement.

And under what authority do you claim those books as being the correct number of books?

I think a more appropriate question to ask is why there has never been a universally accepted canon, even before the Reformation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Also, I forgot to add, in studying different groups that adhere to it, there is no “one” definition of Sola Scriptura and they argue over what it actually means… I used to be a part of some of those arguments.

I’ve found at least 4 differnet categories… there seems to be at least two of them represented by different people here.

Well, as I have often said, since Luther gets the blame/credit, it seems the Lutheran position should be the default, and what any one else says is a morphing of it.

Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC #15

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone

As Christ gave us His Church and She gave us the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, while possessing Sacred Tradition and His Magisterium, there is no “estimating”, and neither is there any other capable to “judge” Her dogmas and doctrines.

#22
We would further contend that what has really changed the form in which Christ founded His Church is universal jurisdiction,

This is a denial of Christ who wrote nothing and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Luther was wrong, for the final authority is Christ’s Supreme Vicar, the Pope who has Christ’s promise of the protection of the Holy Spirit against teaching error “when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” The Pope has to approve everything which is taught by an Ecumenical Council

#31
Our ordinations are valid under divine law, clearly.

The Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of Lutheran ordinations.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=762440

#58
The BoC is subject to scripture because scripture is the final norm.
I think a more appropriate question to ask is why there has never been a universally accepted canon, even before the Reformation.

There has never been a “universally accepted” fullness of all the teaching of Christ through His Church, and there never will unless all assent to all of Her dogma and doctrine as instituted by Christ.

“Catholic” was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch (St. Peter was the first after leaving Jerusalem but before going on to Rome) and was martyred in Rome in approximately 108 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice. This quotation also contains the earliest written reference that we have of the use of the term “Catholic Church.”