- Status
S
SIA
Guest
Are you saying that Scripture should not be the highest authority in Christianity?
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Wait, didn’t we take the ability to reason when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge? 
Who says that the Scripture is not the highest written authority for Catholics? Aren’t we just supposed to be careful about how and who interprets it when concerned with Church doctrine, since you have all kinds of people who think they can reason out of the very same Scripture things like polygamy and suicide cults?
Who says that the Scripture is not the highest written authority for Catholics? Aren’t we just supposed to be careful about how and who interprets it when concerned with Church doctrine, since you have all kinds of people who think they can reason out of the very same Scripture things like polygamy and suicide cults?
G
guanophore
Guest
Authority requires elements (characteristics) that are not fulfilled by Holy Scripture. Scripture does not have intellect or will, both of which are required for discernment and decision making. Attempting to make Scripture an “authority” is like trying to make disciples out of rocks. Rocks do not have the inherint ability to become disciples, and scripture does not have the qualities of a person, which is why Jesus left persons in authority over the church.
In answer to your question, no, Jesus is teh highest authority in Christianity. He is the Head of the Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, God created us “in his image” which means we were given reason as a gift. In taking of the apple, Adam and Eve decided to make themselves the ultimate authority of right and wrong, instead of learning of God His ways.Wait, didn’t we take the ability to reason when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge?
Jesus.
Yes, we must always interpret scripture in the light of the Teachings if Jesus, which have been infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS.
You have come to the right place!
S
SIA
Guest
I absolutely agree with you, but we have his authority in the Scriptures because they are the inherent Word of God. Jesus said many times in his preachings, “it is written”. The Scriptures reveal truths that never change. I would trust God’s unchanging Word before I would trust the changing, fallible traditions and practices of man.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
But much of what has been divinely revealed in Scripture is implicit. For instance, the doctrine of Mary, Ark of the New Covenant:
Please reflect on 2 Sam 6:16; Lk 1: 43-44; Rev 11:19; 12:1
By failing to approach Scripture with an analogical sense, apart from Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, you lack sufficient understanding of what has been divinely revealed in the written word.
“True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the didtinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of the Scriptures, by a complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition with the Scriptures, both without danger and blasphemy; and above all it consists in the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God.”
Irenaeus (A.D. 180)
“When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying, 'Lo, he [the Word of God] is in the inner rooms. But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the [Apostolic] succession in the Church of God.”
Origen (ante A.D. 254)
PAX :tiphat:
M
mpernot
Guest
I don’t know if this is true, but I don’t think it matters. Bibles, like other books, are revised even when something like the cover artwork or the footnotes change that doesn’t impact the inspired word. To me, changing the cover or adding a footnote doesn’t change the word of God. There could be revisions to this word, but the measure of how often that has happened is not directly found in the revision count, for any Bible version.
M
mpernot
Guest
1 Tim 3:15 - “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Scripture itself says that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. Truth, we agree, is Jesus Christ. If Scripture is the highest authority in Christianity, why would the Holy Spirit allow it to be written in Scripture that it is the church that holds this place? Nowhere in Scripture does Scripture say that it is the highest authority for followers of Christ.
The highest authority in Christianity is the authority of Christ and all to whom He gave this authority. And yes, “all to whom He gave this authority” would be the church (singular) that Jesus founded, which Scripture calls the pillar and ground of truth, and which is maintained in this authority via apostolic succession - the Catholic Church.
M
mpernot
Guest
I agree completely. Notice that I can completely agree with you because you didn’t say that we have His authority ONLY in the Scriptures.
I think you are ignoring much of what people are telling you. I’ll say again: “It is written” means that the speaker is quoting another part of Scripture. Look at the footnote near where this occurs, and it will take you to the portion that is being quoted. Also, people other than Jesus said this: St. Paul said it in Romans 3:10 because he was quoting Psalm 14. It has nothing to do with declaring the written word of God sufficient or superior to other sources of God’s authority.
I fully agree.
Doctrines of the Catholic Church cannot be changed. It’s not that the church chooses not to change them, she is not capable of doing so because that would contradict what God has revealed to us. The church that Jesus founded and declared that the “gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” cannot teach error, or the gates of hell would be prevailing against it. The Catholic beliefs on Mary that you have issues with are infallibly defined doctrines, so they cannot be changed no matter how much you don’t like them.
Disciplines, however, are beliefs held by the church that can change without changing the will of God as he revealed it to us. Perhaps you are gettting doctrines and disciplines confused; it’s relatively easy to do, but the distinction is very important. A quick example: celibacy of priests and disallowing the ordination of women as priests are doctrines that cannot be changed even if the Catholic church wanted to. By contrast, allowing priests to be married is a discipline that can be changed without teaching error (I believe some Catholic rites do practice this).
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Huh? OK, I must be the slow kid here…please excuse yet another question from me, (and I mean in earnest that I am
)So, in your example, priests would be able to have a marriage but remain celibate? What’s the point of that? Marriage is for procreation, or as I understand, caring for other children if you can’t have your own, but no marriage is valid unless consummated.
With all due respect, I think maybe a better example of a discipline that could be changed might be say kneeling at one time during the Liturgy as opposed to another. Something that wouldn’t be spelled out specifically in Scripture or in the words of Jesus Christ, but nonetheless we have established as a norm. Those are things the CC can change if it sees fit, right? In the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (I can look it up if someone wants to challenge me, but can’t site exact verse or chapter at the moment) he said that marriage is a distraction from God’s work in the Church, hence we have the doctrine of ordained priests that requires a vow of celibacy. Those of us who feel we must marry, should, but those of us who feel called to priesthood should remain unmarried.
However, mpernot, I still agree with your basic point, OK?
We do not change Scripture, nor our doctrinal interpretation of God’s basic Truth, which was already established nearly 2 millennia ago, am I right?
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Never mind, I just found out it is a discipline, but for the reasons above, I am still confused. 
S
SIA
Guest
You seem to only use Scripture when you feel that it gives your opinion of the RCC being the one true Church founded by Christ much credibility. Otherwise Scripture is just something that Protestants overuse and misunderstand. I was fed that baloney for over three decades. Thank God I came to find that there isn’t a shread of truth in it.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
I’m not trying to cause trouble, but It does bother me how we say some of the things we say such as, “Mary, Mother of God”. We all know what that means,(well I do* now*) but it sure gives ammo to those who take it out of context or without it’s correct meaning and use it to “discredit” Catholicism. I hear it on here by “Christians” ad nauseum. Also, those who are Catholic can sometimes misinterpret that too, and then it becomes doubt within. Seems like we could do better to chose words that have clearer meaning to those that would be converts or are thinking of leaving. I can hear already the ridiculous “PC” statements that may now ensue and hijack this thread, but seriously, so much of the time our explanation of “because the magisterium says so”, or “it’s tradition” works against the CC, almost like a stumbling block. Just an observation.
M
mpernot
Guest
There is no faith that is better defended with Scripture than that of the Catholic Church. I’m sorry if that’s uncomfortable for you. You’ve had plenty of opportunities to show me and others how your position is better supported by Scripture than the Catholic position, and were either unable to show this or chose not to.
Do you have issues with a particular verse I cited, or is this another baseless accusation? If this is about Romans 3 and Psalm 14, don’t trust me; read the citations that link the verses I cited in your own non-Catholic Bible.
I never said that non-Catholic Christians (I’ll use this term instead of protestants) overuse Scripture, I don’t know where you get this from. Anyone who seeks God must read Scripture, it is necessary for all Christians.
Many non-Catholic Christians do misinterpret and misunderstand Scripture because they have only their own fallible interpretation (and the fallible interpretations of anyone else who interprets Scripture to be condemning of Catholics). Many Catholics who go against the Magisterium misinterpret Scripture as well, and it’s no wonder why. Scripture itself says that Scripture is hard to understand:
Acts 8:30-31 - And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
In the preceding verses, it says that the eunich was in charge of the treasures of Queen Candace of Ethiopia. He is very plainly a well-educated and powerful man, yet he acknowledges the need for a guide to help him understand Isiah.
2 Peter 3:15-16 - *And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. *
St. Peter says that some of St. Paul’s letters are hard to understand and easily (and/or willfully) misinterpreted, as with the other Scriptures. I don’t know how he could have said it any clearer. One cannot read Scripture in a vacuum and make up one’s own religion based on what they think it says. I know I would get it wrong if I were on my own, I’m so glad I have the church as a guide.
I’m sorry that you were fed such baloney; don’t continue to eat it. Disagree with what the Catholic Church actually teaches, not what you think she does.
M
mpernot
Guest
I doubt I’m any faster…Huh? OK, I must be the slow kid here…please excuse yet another question from me, (and I mean in earnest that I am
Nope, I’m definitely not any faster. I made a typo and I’m glad you caught it. Celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine, same as ordination of married priests. Ordination of women priests is an example of a doctrine. You are right, celibacy is a gift priests offer that wouldn’t make much sense within the bonds of marriage. Sorry about the confusion, and thanks for the catch.
Yes I believe so. Changes to the mass as you’re talking about would likely require changes to Canon Law and the GIRM, and I believe that can happen as a result of changes in discipline. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, I just learned this distinction recently.
I think what you may be referring to is from 1 Cor 7:In the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (I can look it up if someone wants to challenge me, but can’t site exact verse or chapter at the moment) he said that marriage is a distraction from God’s work in the Church, hence we have the doctrine of ordained priests that requires a vow of celibacy. Those of us who feel we must marry, should, but those of us who feel called to priesthood should remain unmarried.
1 Cor 7:26-28 - *I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. *
I think this passage and the rest of 1 Cor 7 supports celibacy as a discipline and not a doctrine, as I messed up with above. Keep in mind that, although Jesus and many of the apostles were consecrated celibates, St. Peter was married. We know this because Jesus cured his mother in law in Mark 1:29. Also, here are some interesting verses from 1 Tim:
1 Tim 3:2 - It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
This verse says that a bishop must not be ordained who has had more than one wife; it doesn’t say that he must have exactly one. Remember Jesus, St. Paul, and all the others in the church who never married. It shows that neither priestly marriage nor celibacy are against God’s teachings and both can be implemented without disobeying the will of God.
1 Tim 3:12 - Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses.
Same story as in verse 2, only this time laid out for deacons. It is not a sin, though there are very good reasons for priestly celibacy.
Exactly so, and thanks again for the catch.However, mpernot, I still agree with your basic point, OK?
We do not change Scripture, nor our doctrinal interpretation of God’s basic Truth, which was already established nearly 2 millennia ago, am I right?
S
SIA
Guest
I know very well what the Catholic church teaches. I was a cradle Catholic for over three decades. I wasn’t a tongue in cheek Catholic. I practiced Catholicism devoutly at least for 15 years. I know what your church teaches. You may disagree with what I have to say regarding what I learned being Catholic but remember, that’s your opinion and you’re opinion only.
G
guanophore
Guest
If you were a cradle Catholic for three decades, then you probably suffered the same problem a lot of us did, and you did not grow into your faith. Once a person gets out of childhood, the childhood understanding of the faith is no longer sufficient. Many of us in that era received very poor catechism, and downright error. Clearly SIA, you do not know what the Church teaches. Granted, you know what you learned "being Catholic’ but there were some errors. I, too, think you should stop believing the baloney you were fed. At least object to what is actually taught, instead of the misrepresentation you were given. You are clearly passionate about your faith.
S
SIA
Guest
Thanks for the compliment and the well thought post Guanophore.
- Status