Material Sufficientcy of the bible

[Contarini]

Absolutely not, Edwin. I am not trying to explain away a quite clear teach of an E.C. We may be misunderstanding what we thought LG was saying. For sake of ecumenism, we may have interpreted LG away from MC, and we shouldn’t have (apparently).

I don’t think “you” or conservative Catholics generally have done anything of the sort. The statement is directed against those who have interpreted LG to say that the Church can be said to subsist in Protestant as well as Catholic churches, and/or that Protestants suffer from no serious deficiency in terms of the means of salvation.

I was suprised by the most recent statement of CDF and Benedict (who signed off on this statement) on the matter. But the Pope attended the Council, and he knew what was going on. He has backed us off from a too liberal interpretation of LG, and moving us in the direction of MC
Who is a member of the Church, now, for me is contained in Mystici Corporis, primarily, and narrow definition as found in LG which is in agreement with MC. I now do not have to accept the broader statement, if we can call it that, found in LG.

I find this very strange logic. Absolutely nothing in the CDF statement indicates to me any backing away from the literal sense of LG. INowhere does the statement say that non-Catholics participate in no way in the reality of the Church. Why are you reading it this way? Where exactly does the statement say that the literal meaning of LG is illegitimate?

I am a member of the Church. Someone, though baptised, who doesn’t accept the authority of Peter is not. And that is what Benedict has been saying more than once, and in several places.

I have been following his statements on the matter quite closely, and have seen nothing of the sort. Perhaps you can point me to the specific places where he says this.

Bear in mind that I’m quite aware that according to Vatican II I am only imperfectly a member of the Church through baptism. Everything I have read from Benedict/Ratzinger leads me to believe that he fully agrees with this formulation of Vatican II. The Church subsists in the Roman Communion–that is to say, there and only there can one say simply “this is the Church.” Outside the visible boundaries of the Church exist varying degrees of participation in the Church–true particular churches imperfectly joined to the Universal Church in the case of the Eastern Churches; communities of baptized people visibly but imperfectly united to the Church in the case of Protestants; and individuals invisibly and mysteriously united to the concrete, visible reality of Christ and the Church in the case of non-Christians of good will.

That is what I see in Lumen Gentium, in Dominus Iesus, and in the most recent CDF document. What do you see in any of these to contradict this picture?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

TYou would merely have some probable opinion that some particular thing that Scripture teaches is true.

No, at worst I have a probable opinion that the canon of Scripture was correctly determined and thus that Scripture as a whole teaches theological truth. I do not think certainty is very important. If it were, God would have provided us with more of it.

My difficulty is that you haven’t actually shown that a human being can come to ANY of the right conclusions, because you haven’t shown that interpretation of Scripture gives certain theological conclusions.

That’s empirically obvious. The conclusions are frequently wrong, but not always.

you’ve just presented a valid and sound argument for why your interpretation of Scripture can’t produce certain theological truth.

I didn’t claim that it could. I think certainty is necessary only if we are saved by correct opinion. Since I don’t think we are, I am not unduly bothered by the fact that an interpretation of Scripture in the light of the consensus of the Church as a whole as it is available to me (giving proper weight to such things as the dogmatic decrees of the bishops of Rome and of various councils claiming to represent the whole Church) is not 100% guaranteed to yield correct results. I don’t mean that theological orthodoxy is unimportant–if I obstinately reject the truth, my soul is in grave danger. But that is different from saying that complete accuracy in doctrine is necessary for salvation.

Scripture is a book, paper and ink, not theological truth. That might seem pedantic, but it’s an important distinction, because some agent has to apply a rule to generate formal propositions from Scripture.

I don’t think the process works as mechanically as that. And the Catholic Church in its official teachings does not use the highly dismissive and passive language you use to describe Scripture. Instead, it speaks like this:

T For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).

Sorry. I’ve been reading too much Aristotelico-Thomist literature lately.

Well, I’m embarrassed because I did do a minor in medieval philosophy (with Fr. Ed Mahoney, whom I think you know–or was that someone else on Pontifications?). I wasn’t sure exactly what you meant by the proximate object of faith. It’s not Fr. Mahoney’s fault–he put De Veritate on the reading list, if I remember correctly, but I didn’t get to everything on the reading list, mea maxima culpa.

Would God be the remote object of faith, then? I think most Protestants would say that the proximate object of faith is Jesus Christ.

However, I disagree with your claim that making Scripture the proximate object would be bibliolatry. I don’t think it’s idolatrous to identify Scripture (as the written Word of God) with God any more than it is to identify the Church (as the body of Christ) with God, as you do. Clearly neither of these is simply identical with God, but since one is His Word and the other is the body of God the Son, I do not think we are in any danger of idolatry in the honor we pay to either. (I think conditional accusations of bibliolatry are legitimate as a way of pointing out to Protestants the folly of their similar accusations against Catholics–but I think both sets of accusations are unfounded.)

Of course, you are absolutely right that the only way to determine the definite scope and content of Scripture is to appeal to the Church. And here I confess that you have me. I could try to argue that the Church for Protestants (particularly Anglicans) is something real, appealing to baptism, the profession of the ancient Creeds, etc. But I don’t really believe it. The official Catholic language is right–we have ecclesial communities, not what you (or the ancient and medieval Church) would call the Church. Your language on this score is forceful, maybe harsh, but I think it is essentially just.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

anyone who can read Scripture sufficiently well to ascertain the author’s intent and who at least hypothetically accepts the notion of what Scripture is supposed to be (in terms of being an inerrant, whole divine revelation) can determine all Christian dogma, and only such determinations are binding on the conscience.

.

It seems to me you are mixing up man’s ways with our LORD’S ways

 

[mgrfin]

I

Edwin,

You know, I agree with you.

I don’t consider myself a conservative, just a ‘catholic’.

I have had this on again off again conversation with some non-catholic brothers over the years who insisted that Vatican 2 created a change in Catholic theology on ecumenism: that to say that the Church of Christ subsists in numerous churches, and that the Catholic Church is merely one Church along side others.

That is why I was surprised, and maybe happy that CDF issued a clarification, which explained adequately 'susistit in".

As far as Pius XII, he was unwilling to allow too narrow an interpretation of “Outside the Church…”

BTW I have a very fine litho of John XXIII given to me by a classmate on a visit to Rome back in the 60’s. It hangs in a place of honor in my living room.

So, for me, it all spans half a century, from Pius XII, thru John, Paul VI,. John Paul, and now Benedict.

Thanks
peace,
mgrfin

 

[JPrejean]

No, at worst I have a probable opinion that the canon of Scripture was correctly determined and thus that Scripture as a whole teaches theological truth.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.

I do not think certainty is very important. If it were, God would have provided us with more of it.
…
That’s empirically obvious. The conclusions are frequently wrong, but not always.

And that’s what I mean. You know, certainly, that conclusions are wrong or not. If you didn’t know it, then it couldn’t be “empirically obvious!” There are things that you know, and I mean actually know, not simply entertain some probable opinion that might be otherwise.

I didn’t claim that it could. I think certainty is necessary only if we are saved by correct opinion. Since I don’t think we are, I am not unduly bothered by the fact that an interpretation of Scripture in the light of the consensus of the Church as a whole as it is available to me (giving proper weight to such things as the dogmatic decrees of the bishops of Rome and of various councils claiming to represent the whole Church) is not 100% guaranteed to yield correct results. I don’t mean that theological orthodoxy is unimportant–if I obstinately reject the truth, my soul is in grave danger. But that is different from saying that complete accuracy in doctrine is necessary for salvation.

But the necessity of certainty is irrelevant. We don’t determine whether we know something based on whether we need to know it. We know it or don’t. My point is simply that Catholics believe that we know theological truth, not merely that we have an opinion on what theological truth is based on our probable conviction regarding Scripture or whatever else.

And the Catholic Church in its official teachings does not use the highly dismissive and passive language you use to describe Scripture.

In the Church, Scripture certainly is not passive, just like bread and wine does not remain passive under the Church’s action. But the Church’s activity is what makes Scripture living and active, rather than just paper and ink.

Would God be the remote object of faith, then? I think most Protestants would say that the proximate object of faith is Jesus Christ.

Jesus isn’t exactly walking around, so unless you experience some knowable act, Jesus can’t be the proximate object of faith either. I would think of the remote objects of faith as dogmas that are derived from what is immediately experiences and God as the telos of faith, the final cause.

I don’t think it’s idolatrous to identify Scripture (as the written Word of God) with God any more than it is to identify the Church (as the body of Christ) with God, as you do.

There we disagree. I don’t think a book can possibly be identified with a person, but I believe that other persons can.

Of course, you are absolutely right that the only way to determine the definite scope and content of Scripture is to appeal to the Church. And here I confess that you have me. I could try to argue that the Church for Protestants (particularly Anglicans) is something real, appealing to baptism, the profession of the ancient Creeds, etc. But I don’t really believe it. The official Catholic language is right–we have ecclesial communities, not what you (or the ancient and medieval Church) would call the Church. Your language on this score is forceful, maybe harsh, but I think it is essentially just.

Works for me then. That essentially explains why I can’t even possibly be Protestant.

 

[mdcpensive1]

After reading the posts on this thread, I remember a story of an elephant in a room with almost all blind men. The elephant can be seen as the bible and one blind man comes up and feels the elephant trunk and describes the elephant as long and supple and wet on one end. The second blind man feels the tail and calls the elephant long and thin. The third blind man grabs the leg and calls the elephant short and stubby. But the last man, the one who could see, uses his sight to authoritatively see the elephant in all it’s aspects and correctly interprets what the elephant really is because his friends who could not see only had pieces of the truth.

mdcpensive1

 

[Contarini]

In the Church, Scripture certainly is not passive, just like bread and wine does not remain passive under the Church’s action. But the Church’s activity is what makes Scripture living and active, rather than just paper and ink.

That’s fair.

There we disagree. I don’t think a book can possibly be identified with a person, but I believe that other persons can.

A reasonable distinction.

Works for me then. That essentially explains why I can’t even possibly be Protestant.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t become Protestant if I weren’t one already! As it is, I wander around on the boundaries of Protestantism, looking through the fence.

Edwin

 

[JPrejean]

No worries; I respect your position, both biographical and historical, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I just thought this might provide some insight as to how Catholics view faith and why they see Protestantism as untenable on that understanding. As you said, the reasons often remain implicit rather than explicit, and that just promotes further hostility and frustrates talking through the fence, as it were.

 

[savedsinner]

Let’s look to history to see if the formal sufficiency of scripture really works, or was practiced and believed by the early church.

The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.

The Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah’s Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the “tradition of Arianism” was non-existent.

We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture.
This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics.
The biblical arguments provided the “meat” of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of “what had always been believed everywhere by everyone” (St. Vincent of Lerin’s dictum – the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman’s starting-point).

Material vs formal sufficiency