Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[SyCarl]

He was a bishop. The authority comes with the territory.

Now turn that around – where does he say the laity can authoritatively interpret scripture?

He was writing a general treatise on Christian Doctrine. Why wouldn’t it apply to the laity?

 

[Hellisreal]

Irenaeus says similarly and quite clearly says they can be understood by all.

You must be joking. Irenaeus said much more on the subject.

I will hope to return with a reply for your posts tomorrow. Right now I am not spending time on apologetics here. I will look forward to speaking to you about the early fathers.

I find it very odd someone who rejects the very Church the fathers ARE members in to use them to your liking if you think they support your position.

But, they would not support your position to reject the Church.

This however obvious, is not the topic however. And I hope you have a very happy holiday (what is left of it) until we speak again,

Peace to all brothers and sisters in Christ!

 

[Hellisreal]

He was writing a general treatise on Christian Doctrine. Why wouldn’t it apply to the laity?

The laity is not subject to the words of Augustine. If we were, matters of sex would be a frightening thing through his lense.

 

[SyCarl]

Really. Then Ireneaus must be contradicting St. Peter. Is that your thoughts?

Are you saying then that all laity are untaught and unstable? In addition Peter says some things are difficult, not all. And they are difficult, but then Irenaeus and Augustine don’t say it doesn’t require study.

Reversing the question, how do we know that the Church is needed to interpret the Scripture. Don’t use the Scriptures because they can’t be interpretted unless you already have established an infallible authority.

 

[jmcrae]

Where does he say anything about having authority?

He didn’t have to mention that part, since he was standing at the Presider’s chair and wearing his mitre at the time that he said these things - they already knew that he was the Bishop.

What Augustine is saying is that all matters concerning faith and manner of life is clear in the Scritoures and that the clear passages allow us to interpret the unclear.

“Us” being the Magesterium of the Church.

The Scripture does interpret itself.

No. The Bishops interpret the Scriptures.

Scripture is not able to interpret itself, since it does not think with a mind, nor speak with a mouth. It cannot, all by itself, place two passages (say, oh - just at random, Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22) next to each other or show you how they are related to each other, nor what this signifies to the people of God.

 

[SyCarl]

He didn’t have to mention that part, since he was standing at the Presider’s chair and wearing his mitre at the time that he said these things - they already knew that he was the Bishop.

“Us” being the Magesterium of the Church.

No. The Bishops interpret the Scriptures.

Scripture is not able to interpret itself, since it does not think with a mind, nor speak with a mouth. It cannot, all by itself, place two passages (say, oh - just at random, Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22) next to each other or show you how they are related to each other, nor what this signifies to the people of God.

So Augustine was writing to other bishops? That isn’t what it sounds like in the preface to the work.

1. There are certain rules for the interpretation of Scripture which I think might with great advantage be taught to earnest students of the word, that they may profit not only from reading the works of others who have laid open the secrets of the sacred writings, but also from themselves opening such secrets to others. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Preface

 

[SyCarl]

You must be joking. Irenaeus said much more on the subject.

I will hope to return with a reply for your posts tomorrow. Right now I am not spending time on apologetics here. I will look forward to speaking to you about the early fathers.

I find it very odd someone who rejects the very Church the fathers ARE members in to use them to your liking if you think they support your position.

But, they would not support your position to reject the Church.

This however obvious, is not the topic however. And I hope you have a very happy holiday (what is left of it) until we speak again,

Peace to all brothers and sisters in Christ!

I do not use the Early Church Fathers as authoritative but I do use them to show that some things were said prior to the Reformation.

 

[jmcrae]

So Augustine was writing to other bishops? That isn’t what it sounds like in the preface to the work.

Yes - back in those days “earnest students of the word” were the men in Seminary who were training to become Bishops and priests.

Lay people generally weren’t able to read and write in the ancient languages of the Bible, and the books of Scripture were still in the process of being translated into Latin.

 

[SyCarl]

Yes - back in those days “earnest students of the word” were the men in Seminary who were training to become Bishops and priests.

Lay people generally weren’t able to read and write in the ancient languages of the Bible, and the books of Scripture were still in the process of being translated into Latin.

But even if was only for those purposes, they were still students. He is not interpreting for them, he is telling them how to interpret for themselves.

 

[jmcrae]

But even if was only for those purposes, they were still students. He is not interpreting for them, he is telling them how to interpret for themselves.

He’s telling them one method (he also explains the other methods to them, as well, with the assumption that they will use the most appropriate methods for the need at the time) for interpreting it for their hearers; the lay people that they will be teaching, when they become Bishops.

 

[vern_humphrey]

He’s telling them one method (he also explains the other methods to them, as well, with the assumption that they will use the most appropriate methods for the need at the time) for interpreting it for their hearers; the lay people that they will be teaching, when they become Bishops.

After all, Saint Augustine’s works were not just discovered at a garage sale last week. We’ve known about them for a long time – since they were written, in fact – and in all tha time, no one else has “discovered” that Saint Augustine taught that the Bible “interprets itself.”

 

[SyCarl]

He’s telling them one method (he also explains the other methods to them, as well, with the assumption that they will use the most appropriate methods for the need at the time) for interpreting it for their hearers; the lay people that they will be teaching, when they become Bishops.

You are missing my point. If the Church is the only one who can interpret Scripture correctly, should he not be telling them how the Church has interpretted it rather then telling them how to do it on their own whatever method they use.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are missing my point. If the Church is the only one who can interpret Scripture correctly, should he not be telling them how the Church has interpretted it rather then telling them how to do it on their own whatever method they use.

Your point is based on two misunderstandings.

The first is that the Church somehow precludes the laity from reading the Bible. It in fact encourages the laity to read and understand – but reserves authoritative interpretation to itself.

Your second misunderstanding is that literacy was wide-spread in the 5th Century. Augustine was writing for a much more restricted audience than you seem to think.

 

[jmcrae]

You are missing my point. If the Church is the only one who can interpret Scripture correctly, should he not be telling them how the Church has interpretted it rather then telling them how to do it on their own whatever method they use.

He is telling them how the Church has interpreted it. One method is to look back at the Old Testament scriptures that are quoted in the New Testament, and seeing how the Old Testament writer understood that saying, or get the fulness of the story behind that saying.

The example I gave earlier was where you read Matthew 16:19 - “I name you Peter, the Rock upon which I shall establish my Church and I shall give you the keys to Heaven and Hell,” and you compare it to Isaiah chapter 22, which explains what the Keys are (authority to open and shut the doors to the Kingdom) and you can see much more clearly what it is that Jesus is giving to Peter - total authority over everyone except Himself.

 

[justasking4]

Your point is based on two misunderstandings.

The first is that the Church somehow precludes the laity from reading the Bible. It in fact encourages the laity to read and understand – but reserves authoritative

 

[NotWorthy]

Are you saying then that all laity are untaught and unstable? In addition Peter says some things are difficult, not all. And they are difficult, but then Irenaeus and Augustine don’t say it doesn’t require study.

Nope, but as is evidenced by the wealth of religious affilitiations, Scripture does NOT interpret itself all the time. Yes, of course, Scripture requires study, but Scripture itself tells you to go to the Church to resolve disputes.

Reversing the question, how do we know that the Church is needed to interpret the Scripture. Don’t use the Scriptures because they can’t be interpretted unless you already have established an infallible authority.

OK, that’s easy.

Sacred Tradition!

 

[SyCarl]

Nope, but as is evidenced by the wealth of religious affilitiations, Scripture does NOT interpret itself all the time. Yes, of course, Scripture requires study, but Scripture itself tells you to go to the Church to resolve disputes.

OK, that’s easy.

Sacred Tradition!

That is the Church being infallible because the Church says it is infallible. It doesn’t establish the authority in the first place.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is the Church being infallible because the Church says it is infallible. It doesn’t establish the authority in the first place.

No, Jesus did that for us, quity clearly I might add.

What you bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and all that.

 

[SyCarl]

No, Jesus did that for us, quity clearly I might add.

What you bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and all that.

But you are quoting the Bible, but we can’t have a Bible without an infallible Church first who can tell us what the Bible is and means. You can’t use the authority of something that has no authority until it is authorized to establish the authority of the establishing authority.

 

[NotWorthy]

But you are quoting the Bible, but we can’t have a Bible without an infallible Church first who can tell us what the Bible is and means. You can’t use the authority of something that has no authority until it is authorized to establish the authority of the establishing authority.

Byt Sycarl, I can. I’m Catholic! I have no reservations with the circular reason that you present. I’ve read of people gladly going to their deaths to defend that circular reasoning, knowing that the promises of Jesus would be fulfilled.

“Blessed are those who haven’t seen and yet still believe”