Prima Scriptura

[bengal_fan]

On one point at least, the Council mentions an additional contribution made by Tradition, one of great importance: Tradition ‘enabled the Church to recognize the full canon of the Sacred Books’ (DV 8). Here, the extent to which Scripture and Tradition are inseparable can be seen.

one could argue however that scripture gave a standard for the books to be included. they had to be the teachings of the apostles. for that is what the church was devoted to (Acts 2) and that is the basis of our faith. therefore, for a book to be considered as part of the canon (NT), it had to be linked to an apostle.

an example would the the letters of clement to the corinthians. to my knowledge, they contain no heretical teachings. they were read as “scripture” within the corinthian church up until the canon was set. people lived and died thinking of them as inspired. but because of the biblical standard of what is “God-breathed” (Timothy), they were excluded since they did not come from an apostle. the books of luke, mark, hebrews, revelation, jude, james, etc. are all linked directly to apostolic teaching.

therefore, even the creating of the canon had a basis in and standard set forth by scripture. hence, prima scriptura!

 

[theistgal]

For example, the Spanish inquisition, burning people at the stake for not believing exact doctrine of the church. Protestants at the time (along with Catholic reformers within the church) looked at that, and looked at the bible and read ‘turn the other cheek’ etc. and realized the church, whatever your doctrine on infallibility, was screwed up.

Hmm … I’m pretty sure Protestants burned a few people at the stake too. And based it on the Bible. (Ever hear of Salem, Massachusetts?)

 

[bengal_fan]

Before I add anything to this thread I just want to point out that I got a good laugh out of Bengal_fan’s post about agreeing with PS but not with the OP’s beliefs about the Eucharist. Thanks Bengal

not sure why it was funny, but hey… you are welcome. i was just trying to make the point that if we believe in prima scriptura, we have to be willing to acknowledge different interpretations of scripture. it’s those interpretations that are also subject to scripture but then the other standards of faith such as: history, tradition, councils, and community (not in those order or any order for that matter… just all of them subject to scripture themselves).

I can tell you why this Catholic doesn’t agree with it. Its not historical nor Biblical. Also, for instance with you and Bengal, it is not really the bible which is Prima for you but your interpretation. Take for instance your views on the Eucharist, you are holding your interpretation of Scripture as the authority, not the scriptures themselves.

on this point… EVERYONE holds their interpretation above all things. just because you rely on the church to interpret the scripture for you doesn’t mean that your decision to do so was independent of YOUR interpretation that the church had the authority to do so. to think that your belief is ultimately rooted in anything other than our own interpretations is naive. incidentally, i am protestant, but (through my study of scripture… first of course … and tradition, history, councils, community, etc.) i believe in some form of transubstantiation. so i don’t just rely on my interpretation (although we always have our basis there as i said before), but i also consult the other authorities. but it starts with scripture and everything is subject to scripture.

Also if you have really studied Catholic and Church history as much as you have said, you shouldn’t need to ask why it is rejected by the Church.

sure he should as prima scriptura (having never been rejected by the church as i can see) has basically been the practice… especially in recent times in the area of catholic apologetics.

 

[bengal_fan]

Hmm … I’m pretty sure Protestants burned a few people at the stake too. And based it on the Bible. (Ever hear of Salem, Massachusetts?)

true dat!

the only argument with this is that (because of sheer numbers and the size and age of the catholic church) the catholics have done it more often. but you are more than correct that this is a heretical practice done by BOTH protestants and catholics.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Bengal

Perhaps you have already done this, but could you give me a definition of Prima Scriptura?

God bless

 

[bengal_fan]

Bengal

Perhaps you have already done this, but could you give me a definition of Prima Scriptura?

God bless

here is my understanding of it.

starting with the negative definition… prima scriptura denies sola scriptura because sola scriptura is not possible. there is always another authority associated with sola scriptura in practice. whether that authority is the individual, a pastor, author, church community, or denomination sola scriptura never actually takes place.

prima denies an equality of authorities as well because this does not exist in reality either. one authority always takes precedence over another. in practice, sometimes which takes precedence can change, but it is never two working perfectly together.

prima scriptura says (this is my wording mind you so do not attribute this to anyone other than me) that the primary authority, or better stated the authority that takes primacy over other authorities, is scripture. that every teaching, practice, dogma, and doctrine must be in line with scripture and cannot contradict it.

prima admits though, that scripture alone is not sufficient for understanding scripture (does that make sense?). there are numerous ways of interpreting scripture and numerous meanings and points the same passage can make. so we allow for the fact that other authorities must be consulted. these include but are not limited to: tradition, history, church councils, scholars, individual communities of believers, and the individual. not that all of these must agree, but they are the litmus test as to what scripture is teaching.

prima scriptura is what is actually practiced (i believe) even when it is denied. the catholic church has never said prima scriptura is wrong, but it has denied sola scriptura.

what i mean by “actually practiced” is that every apologist, teacher, pastor and priest tries to tie their work and ideas back to scripture. if a tradition or practice plainly violates scripture, it is abandoned and considered heretical. scripture is the test used for all beliefs. even the marian doctrines (although not explicitly found in scripture) can be supported to some extent by scripture and much effort has been made to do so because everyone ultimately uses prima scriptura.

sorry if this seems a bit unorganized… i am working on a paper right now and just taking a break so my mind is a little frazzled right now.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

prima scriptura denies sola scriptura because sola scriptura is not possible.

I like and agree so far.

there is always another authority associated with sola scriptura in practice. whether that authority is the individual, a pastor, author, church community, or denomination sola scriptura never actually takes place.

:yup: Agreed.

prima denies an equality of authorities as well because this does not exist in reality either.

Ok here is my first problem, because wouldn’t this go against what the Catechism says?

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

The issue of whether there can be an equality of authorities aside, how can Prima Scriptura align itself with the Catholic belief of Scripture and Tradition?

prima scriptura says…that the primary authority, or better stated the authority that takes primacy over other authorities, is scripture. that every teaching, practice, dogma, and doctrine must be in line with scripture and cannot contradict it.

Again how can this be reconciled with what the Catechism says about Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? To not contradict scripture does not mean it has to be found in it correct? So Catholic teachings such as its Marian teachings for example can be believed as long as they are found to not contradict scripture? Is this a correct assumption?

the catholic church has never said prima scriptura is wrong, but it has denied sola scriptura.

I agree with that second part, but with the Church’s teaching from the Catechism quote I gave you, does it need to officially come out and reject it?

sorry if this seems a bit unorganized…

No worries. I obviously was not in the know of this Prima Scriptura having rejected it out right as a Sola Scriptura variant.

God bless

 

[Corleone]

thank you for the high number of sarcastic remarks…Very kind of you all…

As a theology major, I continue to study and struggle. You see, I tend to read alot of Calvin, Kreeft, and early church fathers. With this comes a mixture of theological ideas and beliefs. You see, as someone who is very protestant, it kills me to know that Sola Scriptura isnt backed biblically. Its like finding out the Pope touches children pretty for you guys.
Because of people like Kreeft (who i hope youve all heard of) There has been alot of new thoughts on transubstatiation and other certain Catholic traditons. In other words, I’m simply fishing.
I know the Theologies of all…ive read the books… I’m looking for the emotional connection between the Catholic Church’s traditions it’s people. (and the early church fathers arent enough for me to buy into certain doctrine…they disgree on %80 of stuff anyway)
I’m not even debating, I’m simply questioning and playing the bad guy.
I see the flaws in Catholic Doctrine just like I see the issues in the Billy Graham Christianity… However, I feel the need to seperate truth from false doctrine. I’ve been on 3-4 other catholic forums and it’s always a theology debate. We all have our verses and our systematic theologies to prove our points. I want the emotion…

And sorry for bringing up the horrid history…haha, its the protestant way to prove a point. lol.
Oh, and Prof…you’re a ****

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Bengal

Continuing…

Found this from JamesAkin:

Furthermore, 2 Cor. 6:14, the verse that talks about being unequally yoked, is talking about marriage. A critic can set up a parallel with this passage, but let’s see if the marriage analogy really works. True, Apostolic Tradition is lower than Apostolic Scripture on one level. But this does not unequally yokes them. After all, a man and a woman are not unequally yoked just because the wife is lower than her husband on one level. If we are going to use this marriage analogy, let’s use it all the way: Apostolic Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are married together, with Apostolic Scripture taking the lead and Apostolic Tradition filling a supportive, interpretive role, just as a man and a woman are married together, the man taking the lead and the woman filling a helpful, supportive role, explaining and interpreting the husband’s will to the children when his own explanations have not made it thoroughly clear to them.

This is a doctrine Catholics call “prima Scriptura.” Apostolic Scripture does have primacy over Apostolic Tradition (and the Church as well; see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11). We look to it first and foremost because it is inspired, giving us God’s ipsisima verba. But we also look to Apostolic Tradition to help us understand Apostolic Scripture, since it conveys God’s ipsisima vox. As a Catholic I don’t believe in sola scriptura, but I firmly believe in prima scriptura.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INSPIR.htm

**
Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11**

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

[vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html)

I still do not see Pirma Scriptura in this statement from Dei Verbum? What is it that Akin is seeing that I am not?

God bless

 

[Harmony1988]

thank you for the high number of sarcastic remarks…Very kind of you all…

As a theology major, I continue to study and struggle. You see, I tend to read alot of Calvin, Kreeft, and early church fathers. With this comes a mixture of theological ideas and beliefs. You see, as someone who is very protestant, it kills me to know that Sola Scriptura isnt backed biblically. Its like finding out the Pope touches children pretty for you guys.
Because of people like Kreeft (who i hope youve all heard of) There has been alot of new thoughts on transubstatiation and other certain Catholic traditons. In other words, I’m simply fishing.
I know the Theologies of all…ive read the books… I’m looking for the emotional connection between the Catholic Church’s traditions it’s people. (and the early church fathers arent enough for me to buy into certain doctrine…they disgree on %80 of stuff anyway)
I’m not even debating, I’m simply questioning and playing the bad guy.
I see the flaws in Catholic Doctrine just like I see the issues in the Billy Graham Christianity… However, I feel the need to seperate truth from false doctrine. I’ve been on 3-4 other catholic forums and it’s always a theology debate. We all have our verses and our systematic theologies to prove our points. I want the emotion…

And sorry for bringing up the horrid history…haha, its the protestant way to prove a point. lol.
Oh, and Prof…you’re a ****

So you accused us of sarcasm, and then were sarcastic yourself. Hypocrisy. It proves no point.

I think praxis says a lot, protestant philosophy is inherently flawed, deeply. If it wasn’t, there would be no 30,000 denominations + each with the ‘way of truth’

Not compare that with the catholic faith where there is very few that broke away, and even at that, most of them are ‘traditional’ catholics.

There is no central authority, it’s free for all, and simply put, open to too many flawed theologies and evil to run amuck. Given another 20 years, we will probably see than number rise to about 35,000.

You can’t talk about the inconsistency of Catholicism, when protestant denominations are multiplying like bacteria on a petri dish.

 

[bengal_fan]

i love it when things can be civil here.
Roman_Catholic… you have been extremely courteous… thank you and bless you as well.

Ok here is my first problem, because wouldn’t this go against what the Catechism says?..

The issue of whether there can be an equality of authorities aside, how can Prima Scriptura align itself with the Catholic belief of Scripture and Tradition?..

Again how can this be reconciled with what the Catechism says about Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? To not contradict scripture does not mean it has to be found in it correct? So Catholic teachings such as its Marian teachings for example can be believed as long as they are found to not contradict scripture? Is this a correct assumption?

i don’t think it would go against the catechism and here is why. i think it is evident that prima scriptura is what is actually practiced. if you look all the way back to the church fathers up through to today, every argument that has been made by the church and her apologists start in scripture. eventually, some of them get to just saying, “rome said it, i believe it, that’s the end of it.” (ireaneus does this for example, but his argument is littered with scripture references before that). but, in practice, the church has seemed to always fall to prima scriptura. even the marian doctrines have been justified through the use of scripture. just read “Hail, Holy Queen” by scott hahn. the whole point is to show that the marian doctrines are actually founded in scripture. if the church and her teachers, writers, priests, doctors, and apologists really believed scripture and tradition (along with the teaching authority of the church) were 100% equal, they would not feel the need to justify themselves with scripture… they would just be the parent who says, “because i said so!” lol

I agree with that second part, but with the Church’s teaching from the Catechism quote I gave you, does it need to officially come out and reject it?

i think if it is not what the church actually believes, then yes they need to come out and say it because, as i see it, it is what they practice.

 

[bengal_fan]

also, i think an acknowledgment of prima scriptura by the catholic church could open up numerous doors of dialogue with the “separated brethren” (of which i am one). and since it is what the church seems to practice, why not say it and open these doors?

just to clarify about my “separated brethren” comment (and in no way do i mean to hijack this thread).

i basically have 4 things keeping me from the catholic church that i have wrestled with now for 6 years. some, i think could be reconciled (well, all could be reconciled if the church would just agree with me ).

1. it is such a hotbutton issue and one i’ve really struggled with but have become thoroughly convinced scripturally about. i believe women should be allowed to be priests. there, i said it. of course i start this list with THE most controversial thing on it, but hey, i like to stir a pot once in a while.
2. along the lines of the priesthood, i believe the church should allow married men to be priests. i think celibacy is a great gift from God, but i do not believe that everyone who IS called to be a priest has that gift. i think married priests could add such a depth to the priesthood. i do not think celibacy should be discouraged, but encouraged to the extent one has that special gift. i also, don’t have a problem with only allowing celibate bishops. basically, i agree with the orthodox church on this one. if you are unmarried when you become a priest, you should remain unmarried. if you are married, you should still be allowed to become a priest just never a bishop (or, God forbid, the pope! could you imagine what the pope’s wife would have to go through!!).
3. because of the female priesthood, i struggle with the infallibility of the pope. i think JPII was unbelievably inspiring. it is because of him i even began to consider returning to the catholic church (i was born, baptized, first communionized, confirmed in the church). but when he said that it is impossible for the church to ever allow female priests, i disagreed with him and on scriptural grounds. that is for another thread however.
4. while i personally do not have a problem with nearly all of the marian doctrines (the co-redemptrix thing doesn’t sit right with me unless we are going to call all of us “co-redemptrixes” because we all participate in our redemption to some extent), i do not think they should be binding for salvation. they are so ambiguous in scripture and not the point at all of Jesus’ ministry here on earth. they are a beautiful addition in many respects and could all be completely true, but they should not be “required” belief. the mediatrix title scares me too as well as the idea of her being the dispenser of all graces. of course, i understand heaven as a place where we will discover and fulfill our ultimate purposes. one of those is to eternally worship God. the other of those will be the job God gives us in heaven. because of this idea, i wholeheartedly accept the idea of patron saints because i see that as the job God gave them to do and it is for our benefit as well as for their complete fulfillment. maybe mary’s job is to dispense grace. i don’t know, but it shouldn’t be binding.

i say all this so that you know i am desperately seeking truth and not just masking sola scriptura in language i think a catholic will accept.

 

[Harmony1988]

1. while i personally do not have a problem with nearly all of the marian doctrines (the co-redemptrix thing doesn’t sit right with me unless we are going to call all of us “co-redemptrixes” because we all participate in our redemption to some extent), i do not think they should be binding for salvation. they are so ambiguous in scripture and not the point at all of Jesus’ ministry here on earth. they are a beautiful addition in many respects and could all be completely true, but they should not be “required” belief. the mediatrix title scares me too as well as the idea of her being the dispenser of all graces. of course, i understand heaven as a place where we will discover and fulfill our ultimate purposes. one of those is to eternally worship God. the other of those will be the job God gives us in heaven. because of this idea, i wholeheartedly accept the idea of patron saints because i see that as the job God gave them to do and it is for our benefit as well as for their complete fulfillment. maybe mary’s job is to dispense grace. i don’t know, but it shouldn’t be binding.

i say all this so that you know i am desperately seeking truth and not just masking sola scriptura in language i think a catholic will accept.

Well you are right that we do take a part in our redemption of course, because ultimately, through the bad times, it’s our perserverance, our attitude, ultimately our faith and our charity that redeems us as our part. Now I know that that by itself is not what redeems us, because we are imperfect in many ways, but God still requires us to strive for perfection.

Mary, accepting God’s will for her, made it possible for our redemption. That is why she is a co-redemptrix. Mary could have declined it, as she was a free being, and all free beings made from love have a will to do as they wish.

It is because of her devotion and her acceptance, even though she didn’t fully understand she is revered as she is. She ultimately bore the son of God who honoured her, as any good Jew did, the 4th commandment, and hence why we honour her too.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

i love it when things can be civil here.
Roman_Catholic… you have been extremely courteous… thank you and bless you as well.

:tiphat: Prima Scriptura is not a term I have heard before. I have heard Sola and Solo Scriptura, but not Prima. No need to be anything but courteous when the goal is to learn.

but, in practice, the church has seemed to always fall to prima scriptura. even the marian doctrines have been justified through the use of scripture.

I don’t seem to have much problems with Prima Scriptura, it is the belief that in order for something to be considered a Christian belief it must be found in Scripture that I have issues with. I don’t see this in PS, as I do in SS. It seems more… well Biblically, historically, and theologically sound than SS. But you knew this already.

So if Scripture is silent on something, or not altogether clear, is it acceptable to go to another authority with PS, say the Church? For instance, infant baptism? Though it can, and has been argued that there were no cases of infants being baptized in the Bible, there is no where in the Bible which states infants were not to be baptized, therefore does not contradict scripture.

if the church and her teachers, writers, priests, doctors, and apologists really believed scripture and tradition (along with the teaching authority of the church) were 100% equal, they would not feel the need to justify themselves with scripture… they would just be the parent who says, “because i said so!” lol

The logic is there. Part of it could be also though that Non-Catholic Christians would prefer to see these things in Scripture rather than just the Church telling them. But like I said, I can’t fault the logic.

also, i think an acknowledgment of prima scriptura by the catholic church could open up numerous doors of dialogue with the “separated brethren” (of which i am one). and since it is what the church seems to practice, why not say it and open these doors?

This is what I was wondering. I spent some time today trying to find something from the Church on it. I read the Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11 and did not find it in there, though Akin did. It seems like Prima Scriptura is really what Non-Catholic Christians use anyways. SS is very hard to put into practice.

i say all this so that you know i am desperately seeking truth and not just masking sola scriptura in language i think a catholic will accept.

It is different than SS, there is no denying that. I have to do some more research on it, seeing as this thread was the first I had heard of PS and immediately figured it was a SS variant. As of right now, I don’t have many qualms with it. Seems to be what most do anyways, some just don’t realize it.

God bless

 

[bengal_fan]

honoring her and calling her the “co-redemptrix” are two different things though. (again, i don’t want to hijack this thread so we can start another one or PM). if mary had said no, God would have found some one else to use.

is moses also a co-redemptrix?

is noah?

if i help some one understand God’s salvation for them, am i?

if you answer yes to those, then i will happily call mary co-redemtrix just like i will call my friend sean the same thing for he had a role in my salvation by saying yes to God and going to the school and sharing Christ with me.

again, i do honor mary. just as i honor all the saints who have passed from this life to the next as well as those still on earth. i even am willing to give her a special place because of the specific role God had her play. i think the rosary can be a beautiful and Christ centered discipline. but i think some (and not necessarily the church in her teachings but in practice by many catholics) take it too far.

 

[bengal_fan]

Roman,
i would say that if something is not specifically found in scripture but does not contradict it, then the church is free to believe it or practice it (not that i am the person that gets to decide what the church is allowed to do…lol).

but, i just don’t see anything that the church has said that cannot be found in the bible (i do think the church has done some things that contradict the bible, but not in a sense that would attack infallibility, just decency…). i might not agree with her interpretation of those passages but the catholic church has gone to great lengths since the beginning to build its teachings on the writings from the apostles.

you used the example of infant baptism. but i think that is one of the easiest ones to show biblical support for even though we don’t have an incident of one baby actually being baptized in the bible. paul equating it with circumcision, Jesus commanding His disciples to let the little children come, entire households being baptized all point to the validity of baptizing the infants of believers.

i would agree though, that if not found anywhere in scripture, but not contradicting it, the church would be the authority to turn to. but i think we mean different things by “the church”. you probably refer to the magesterium and ultimately the pope. i would say all of the bishops would need to be a part (this would include the orthodox) as well as protestant scholars and leaders. i just understand it as the community of believers acting together.

although, i still can’t imagine a scenario where something just absolutely cannot be found anywhere in scripture at all and the church needing to implement it as doctrine or practice. i would also say that contradicting scripture doesn’t just mean going against the black and white (oooohhhhh, don’t forget about my red letter edition!!) words, but also the consistent themes of scripture.

 

[Harmony1988]

honoring her and calling her the “co-redemptrix” are two different things though. (again, i don’t want to hijack this thread so we can start another one or PM). if mary had said no, God would have found some one else to use.

is moses also a co-redemptrix?

is noah?

if i help some one understand God’s salvation for them, am i?

if you answer yes to those, then i will happily call mary co-redemtrix just like i will call my friend sean the same thing for he had a role in my salvation by saying yes to God and going to the school and sharing Christ with me.

again, i do honor mary. just as i honor all the saints who have passed from this life to the next as well as those still on earth. i even am willing to give her a special place because of the specific role God had her play. i think the rosary can be a beautiful and Christ centered discipline. but i think some (and not necessarily the church in her teachings but in practice by many catholics) take it too far.

True but how many times did Moses falter with God? Constantly coming up with excuses, ‘i have a slow tongue’, etc.

Mary exemplified, child like confidence, trust and will like we are meant to have when dealing with God. Indeed if you help someone understand God’s plan for salvation, you have helped redeemed them, and God does not forget such things. You will be rewarded.

Mary was also ‘full of grace’, she did not sin, in earthly terms, Jesus and Mary resembled each other perfectly. How do we know God would have found someone else to ‘use’ ? Eitherways whether or not he would have, or made someone to do so, it doesn’t detract from Mary’s acceptance.

 

[bengal_fan]

Mary was also ‘full of grace’, she did not sin, in earthly terms, Jesus and Mary resembled each other perfectly. How do we know God would have found someone else to ‘use’ ? Eitherways whether or not he would have, or made someone to do so, it doesn’t detract from Mary’s acceptance.

i have trouble with the idea of her not sinning. i can believe it, but i still don’t think it should be a binding doctrine. the comparison of mary to the ark is a good support for the idea. “full of grace” can just as legitimately be translated “favored one”. i know that translation doesn’t fit with the theology of some so they reject it, but it is a legitimate translation of the passage. either way, full of grace does not have to mean “without sin”. i am not trying to paint mary as some “evil sinner” but i do think that some passages could be interpreted as her not being entirely without sin.

again, i really could believe the idea of mary being saved from sin before she sinned, but it still shouldn’t be binding for all believers to uphold the teaching.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Roman,
i would say that if something is not specifically found in scripture but does not contradict it, then the church is free to believe it or practice it (not that i am the person that gets to decide what the church is allowed to do…lol).

but, i just don’t see anything that the church has said that cannot be found in the bible (i do think the church has done some things that contradict the bible, but not in a sense that would attack infallibility, just decency…). i might not agree with her interpretation of those passages but the catholic church has gone to great lengths since the beginning to build its teachings on the writings from the apostles.

you used the example of infant baptism. but i think that is one of the easiest ones to show biblical support for even though we don’t have an incident of one baby actually being baptized in the bible. paul equating it with circumcision, Jesus commanding His disciples to let the little children come, entire households being baptized all point to the validity of baptizing the infants of believers.

i would agree though, that if not found anywhere in scripture, but not contradicting it, the church would be the authority to turn to. but i think we mean different things by “the church”. you probably refer to the magesterium and ultimately the pope. i would say all of the bishops would need to be a part (this would include the orthodox) as well as protestant scholars and leaders. i just understand it as the community of believers acting together.

although, i still can’t imagine a scenario where something just absolutely cannot be found anywhere in scripture at all and the church needing to implement it as doctrine or practice. i would also say that contradicting scripture doesn’t just mean going against the black and white (oooohhhhh, don’t forget about my red letter edition!!) words, but also the consistent themes of scripture.

I have to admit, Prima Scriptura as peaked my interest.I am very, very interested in seeing how Prima Scriptura will fly with other non-Catholic Christians. Especially those who hold firmly to Sola Scriptura. My guess is that it will be rejected by them.

I already read an article by James White about PS being a cover up by the Catholic Church to sound like we are a Sola Scriptuist Church… Which is something I didn’t know we were trying to portray Who knew huh?

What is most dangerous about this perspective is the fact that in reality its adherents are saying almost nothing different than those who hold to the partim-partim view, at least as far as it concerns sola scriptura. It just sounds like they are. A tremendous example of this is found in the use of the phrase prima scriptura by former evangelical turned Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn.The end result is the same: the sole sufficiency of the Scripture is denied, and in its place we have an authoritarian system that logically has no means of self-correction. That is, since there is no external and unchanging rule of faith for the Roman Catholic Church, there is no real means of reformation when she goes astray in doctrinal matters.

*Hopefully I am allowed to put White’s web-site here to reference this quote I took. If not, mods feel free to delete.

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1465

Mr. White seems to conclude that Prima Scriptura is a Catholic belief to start with, which makes this even more interesting. I will have to look into what Hahn has to say about it, since he is credited with using the phrase.

God bless

 

[bengal_fan]

well, i won’t link to his site since you already did, but i wanted to address something in the quote from james white.

What is most dangerous about this perspective is the fact that in reality its adherents are saying almost nothing different than those who hold to the partim-partim view, at least as far as it concerns sola scriptura. It just sounds like they are. A tremendous example of this is found in the use of the phrase prima scriptura by former evangelical turned Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn.The end result is the same: the sole sufficiency of the Scripture is denied, and in its place we have an authoritarian system that logically has no means of self-correction. That is, since there is no external and unchanging rule of faith for the Roman Catholic Church, there is no real means of reformation when she goes astray in doctrinal matters.

in practice, every “sola scripturist” denies the sole sufficiency of scripture. how you ask?? well, i’ll tell you. because it is ultimately THEIR INTERPRETATION of scripture that is the sole sufficiency of their faith. it is not the actual bible, but how they interpret it that is the sole rule of faith for them. they, in a sense, become a 1 man denomination with themselves as pope. in actual practice, he adheres to prima scriptura, he would just have different authorities than the catholic church does when applying secondary ones.