Sola Scriptura...

[Della]

Is this the official RCC stance? That the word of God, The Bible, is synonymous with the church? I don’t really see how that is possible, as one is a collection of manuscripts divinely inspired, and the other is a congregation of people… perhaps I’m being too literal? Is there any mention of this, say, in the catechism?

I don’t know that I could find an explicit definition from the CCC for you. But, if we consider this logically, it’s only reasonable. When Jesus called St. Paul, he identified himself with the Church to the point of saying, “Why are you persecuting me?” Not “Why are you persecuting my people [or] my Church?”

Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is the writings of men inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so we call it the word of God. But, Jesus is the source of the written word of God, even the OT since the Father works in and through his Son in all things through the power of the Holy Spirit.

This being the case, how could Jesus, the Church and his words not be one? I don’t mean that they aren’t separate things in their physical sense, but in reality, they are one, as the Father is one with the Son and they are one with the Holy Spirit although they are three persons.

Everything has its beginning and ending in God who has given all authority to his Son so that he might be all in all in all things. Does that make sense or did I lose you through my poor explanation?

 

[SteveVH]

Is this the official RCC stance? That the word of God, The Bible, is synonymous with the church? I don’t really see how that is possible, as one is a collection of manuscripts divinely inspired, and the other is a congregation of people… perhaps I’m being too literal? Is there any mention of this, say, in the catechism?

Hi, Kliska.

The Catholic Church determined the canon of Sacred Scripture for the purpose of using the writings in its liturgy. The measure of their validity as inspired writings was how they stacked up against the truth already possessed by the Church and preserved in Sacred Tradition. That is why it is a little humorous when we are told that the Catholic Church is unbiblical in its doctrines and practices.

As you no doubt have heard before, the Bible did not give us the Church, the Church gave us the Bible. So when we say that the Bible and the Church are one what we mean is that the Sacred Scriptures reflect the faith of the Church because they were born from the Church and therefore cannot be separated. They are that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. It is exactly when the Scriptures are separated from the faith that produced them that problems occur.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[Della]

Hi, Kliska.

The Catholic Church determined the canon of Sacred Scripture for the purpose of using the writings in its liturgy. The measure of their validity as inspired writings was how they stacked up against the truth already possessed by the Church and preserved in Sacred Tradition. That is why it is a little humorous when we are told that the Catholic Church is unbiblical in its doctrines and practices.

As you no doubt have heard before, the Bible did not give us the Church, the Church gave us the Bible. So when we say that the Bible and the Church are one what we mean is that the Sacred Scriptures reflect the faith of the Church because they were born from the Church and therefore cannot be separated. They are that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. It is exactly when the Scriptures are separated from the faith that produced them that problems occur.

Blessings.

Steve

Thank you Steve for your very lucid explanation. :tiphat: I’m afraid I went a bit too spiritual in my answer.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you Steve for your very lucid explanation. :tiphat: I’m afraid I went a bit too spiritual in my answer.

Timing is everything. I typed my post before I saw that you had already responded. Had I read your response prior I don’t think I would have even offered an explanation as yours was more than sufficient.

 

[Della]

Timing is everything. I typed my post before I saw that you had already responded. Had I read your response prior I don’t think I would have even offered an explanation as yours was more than sufficient.

Still, after thinking about it, it’s good that Kliska, and all who might read our words, have both, for a more rounded view of the concept.

 

[SteveVH]

Still, after thinking about it, it’s good that Kliska, and all who might read our words, have both, for a more rounded view of the concept.

Absolutely.

 

[PJM]

=aidanbradypop;11479980]Sorry you feel that way.

I have no problem with Tradition is it plays a equal role in my Church as well. Those that would object are the ones that discard Tradition completely.

Hi Duston,

Good news on TRADITION.

But MY friend, that’s merely the tip of the TRUTH ice-berg

One True God

Can and Does have only One true set of faith believes which He handed on to the Apostles, directly and completely

AND following OT Tradition of One “Chosen People” Christ founded only One Church;
today’s CC [Eph. 4:4-8]

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

=Truth_Faith13;11482297]Thank you for those passages!

What I meant was should the church ever teach anything which was against scripture…people would know that it was not true because it is against the Bible.

I guess this is similar to the hen or the egg situation (which came first?)

Even by showing me those passages you are showing me scripture to show how the Catholic Church is the true one yet the Catholic Church claims that there is more to it than just scripture but traditions…but the traditions that the church follows can not (and does not according to catholics) go against scripture.

So in effect what people seem to be saying is the church put together the scriptures to uphold their traditions yet the church is also “backed up” by the scriptures as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

'm not quite sure I am following your point? It’s a DUH for me

Certainly the Bible DOES support the CC as the One True Chrurch founded by Christ; as does SACRED Tradition and even secular history.

God Bless you [and help me]
Patrick

 

[landon13]

There is only ONE true Sacred Tradition: the Sacred Deposit entrusted to the Apostles by Jesus Christ and continued by their successors to this day in the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Anyone else holding to some tradition or no tradition at all is missing out on truth revealed by God in the institution Christ set into motion.

God bless!

 

[JonNC]

=Della;11482899]I wish to respond to the bolded part, if I may. I agree that that is the definition, as envisioned by the reformers, of SS. However, it quickly devolved into every man interpreting the Bible for himself, which is why we have so many divisions and contrary opinions on major issues, not just minor ones, within Protestant Christianity.

But not within confessional Lutheranism. Doctrine is what it is, and personal interpretation isn’t relevant. What other communions did or do is up to them. If, as you said you agree with, the definition of SS is as I have outlined, then what they do isn’t SS.

You mentioned the 200+ “churches” in the Catholic Church. They aren’t separate “churches” in the sense that they are not in union with Rome. Most are simply local rites or others that have a certain amount of autonomy in some areas of jurisdiction, etc. But, they are not separate from Rome and therefore are not “protestant” denominations or anything of the kind. I just wanted to make that clear for our OP.

Yes, and I want to make clear that I don’t think there are 200+ RC Churches. That’s ludicrous. I only mention it to cast the light of reality on the suspect nature of the 33,000 denominations number. Yes, there are too many divisions burdening His Church, when only one institutional body should be encompass the entire Church Militant. Pray for the day.

Also, the Catholic Church, both East and West, is the Church Christ founded to which he gave the charism of infallibility. This is his work, not the work of men, accomplished, again, not by men, but by the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Jesus prayed that we all be one. He never intended that the baptized should be separated by theology or authority.

I agree, there should be one authority, as exemplified by the councils of the early Church.

How I wish all the good things our Protestant brethren have could be brought into the One Church so we could have a united effort in spreading the Gospel. We Catholics trust utterly and completely in Jesus’ promises of infallibility and indestructibility of his Church. The very fact that the Church has remained true to Christ’s word, in spite of men’s sins, vagaries, and finite understanding is proof enough that Jesus is capable of keeping his promises. I can’t understand how you can think that Jesus failed in this promise.

Perhaps you believe he never made such a promise? If that’s the case, I can understand your position, but since it’s right there in Scripture and the Church has withstood all the things that men could do to destroy her and her commission, from within and without, I would think it would be obvious, but then maybe you can’t see that either? I’m just wondering out loud here because in so many other aspects you seem on top of things.

The problem is you define Church as only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome. So, the promise is surely there, but knowing exactly where there is can be difficult. The onus, ISTM, is on the EO and CC to work that out.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hi Duston,

Good news on TRADITION.

But MY friend, that’s merely the tip of the TRUTH ice-berg

One True God

Can and Does have only One true set of faith believes which He handed on to the Apostles, directly and completely

AND following OT Tradition of One “Chosen People” Christ founded only One Church;
today’s CC [Eph. 4:4-8]

God Bless you,
Patrick

Thanks Patrick

 

[Della]

But not within confessional Lutheranism. Doctrine is what it is, and personal interpretation isn’t relevant. What other communions did or do is up to them. If, as you said you agree with, the definition of SS is as I have outlined, then what they do isn’t SS.

I remember reading that Luther was appalled that others were setting themselves up as their own churches with their own interpretations of Scripture. Still, once the idea was put out there that all one needed was the Bible, what else could anyone expect? There was no consensus amongst the reformers because each of them decided for himself what they would believe based on their own interpretation. It cannot be denied that the reformation opened that Pandora’s box.

Yes, and I want to make clear that I don’t think there are 200+ RC Churches. That’s ludicrous. I only mention it to cast the light of reality on the suspect nature of the 33,000 denominations number. Yes, there are too many divisions burdening His Church, when only one institutional body should be encompass the entire Church Militant. Pray for the day.

Well considering people believe that all they need is two chairs and a Bible to start their own church, I don’t think the number is an exaggeration.

I agree, there should be one authority, as exemplified by the councils of the early Church.

But not in any of the councils following what date? What happened? Did the Holy Spirit desert the Church at some point? And why would he do that? If I’m misunderstanding something, please let me know.

The problem is you define Church as only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome. So, the promise is surely there, but knowing exactly where there is can be difficult. The onus, ISTM, is on the EO and CC to work that out.

Jon

I’m afraid I gave the wrong impression, then. All the baptized are members of Christ’s Church, if not perfectly in union with it. And the EO isn’t the only ecclesial body that needs to consider reunion. The Vatican is engaged in talks with the EO churches. Let us hope it goes well and that all Christians will one day be united in all things, as Our Lord desired us to be. :grouphug:

 

[JonNC]

=Della;11486946]I remember reading that Luther was appalled that others were setting themselves up as their own churches with their own interpretations of Scripture. Still, once the idea was put out there that all one needed was the Bible, what else could anyone expect? There was no consensus amongst the reformers because each of them decided for himself what they would believe based on their own interpretation. It cannot be denied that the reformation opened that Pandora’s box.

Luther never put out the idea that all one needs is the Bible.
The was/is no consensus among the patriarchs regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. The Pandora’s box of disagreement was opened long before the Reformation era.

Well considering people believe that all they need is two chairs and a Bible to start their own church, I don’t think the number is an exaggeration.

Would you agree that more than one is too many?

But not in any of the councils following what date? What happened? Did the Holy Spirit desert the Church at some point? And why would he do that? If I’m misunderstanding something, please let me know.

I do not understand the notion that, if humans make mistakes, then all of a sudden the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church. The Holy Spirit is till there, Della, leading all of us, even if we don’t follow very well. What happened was there has not been a truly ecumenical council since because there continue to be Schism between West and East.

I’m afraid I gave the wrong impression, then. All the baptized are members of Christ’s Church, if not perfectly in union with it. And the EO isn’t the only ecclesial body that needs to consider reunion. The Vatican is engaged in talks with the EO churches. Let us hope it goes well and that all Christians will one day be united in all things, as Our Lord desired us to be. :grouphug:

Amen, Della, Amen.

Jon

 

[Della]

Luther never put out the idea that all one needs is the Bible.
The was/is no consensus among the patriarchs regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. The Pandora’s box of disagreement was opened long before the Reformation era.

Not quite. The patriarchs of the Church didn’t start new churches over this issue. Once the Church spoke definitely, then the matter was settled. Those in schism from the Church like to point to this, but really, the East left over other issues having more to do with bad diplomacy than doctrine, but the split widened when the EOs rejected papal supremacy.

Would you agree that more than one is too many?

Indeed, I do.

I do not understand the notion that, if humans make mistakes, then all of a sudden the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church. The Holy Spirit is till there, Della, leading all of us, even if we don’t follow very well. What happened was there has not been a truly ecumenical council since because there continue to be Schism between West and East.

Our personal guidance from God is not on the same level as that of the Church being led into all truth. Men cannot ruin the Church no matter how hard they might try, and many have tried both inside and out. This is because it is God’s Church, not primarily our Church. The East has many issues to overcome as do the various Lutheran synods, but the Catholic Church is still Christ’s Church no matter how many groups leave her/divorce her to one degree or another. The Catholic Church does not have to wait for them to return to have ecumenical councils because it is still the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Christ.

Amen, Della, Amen.

Jon

Well, as the old woman said to her husband as they sat on either ends of the couch, “Honey, why haven’t we cuddled for so long?” His reply? “I haven’t moved.”

 

[JonNC]

=Della;11487593]Not quite. The patriarchs of the Church didn’t start new churches over this issue. Once the Church spoke definitely, then the matter was settled. Those in schism from the Church like to point to this, but really, the East left over other issues having more to do with bad diplomacy than doctrine, but the split widened when the EOs rejected papal supremacy.

Ah, but they say you are in Schism.
They rejected papal supremacy because they cannot find it in scripture or Tradition.

Indeed, I do.

Our personal guidance from God is not on the same level as that of the Church being led into all truth. Men cannot ruin the Church no matter how hard they might try, and many have tried both inside and out. This is because it is God’s Church, not primarily our Church. The East has many issues to overcome as do the various Lutheran synods, but the Catholic Church is still Christ’s Church no matter how many groups leave her/divorce her to one degree or another. The Catholic Church does not have to wait for them to return to have ecumenical councils because it is still the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Christ.

All the communions you named, and more, are part of Christ’s Church, and are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If one looks at the early councils, to make it ecumenical meant there was agreement. That has not happened since the 7th council.

Well, as the old woman said to her husband as they sat on either ends of the couch, “Honey, why haven’t we cuddled for so long?” His reply? “I haven’t moved.”

My dad used to say, “it takes two to tango”.

Jon

 

[Della]

Ah, but they say you are in Schism.
They rejected papal supremacy because they cannot find it in scripture or Tradition.

Rather, they rejected it because the emissary to the East was too heavy-handed. Afterwards, the excuse was made that it’s not scriptural or in Sacred Tradition. But, in any event, Christ founded only one Church on Peter and the Apostles. If men decide not to be fully joined with her, that’s their loss and our sadness.

All the communions you named, and more, are part of Christ’s Church, and are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If one looks at the early councils, to make it ecumenical meant there was agreement. That has not happened since the 7th council.

Again, this definition of an ecumenical council is not the Catholic Church’s definition. I will go with what Christ’s Church defines.

My dad used to say, “it takes two to tango”.

Jon

Indeed, but if one partner is unwilling, then no dance can be danced.

Anyway, we are way off topic now. I’m sure that Truth_Faith13’s eyes have glazed over by reading all this, if s/he even has. For my part, I’m done discussing this. Happy Advent and Merry Christmas.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Rather, they rejected it because the emissary to the East was too heavy-handed. Afterwards, the excuse was made that it’s not scriptural or in Sacred Tradition. But, in any event, Christ founded only one Church on Peter and the Apostles. If men decide not to be fully joined with her, that’s their loss and our sadness.

Again, this definition of an ecumenical council is not the Catholic Church’s definition. I will go with what Christ’s Church defines.

Indeed, but if one partner is unwilling, then no dance can be danced.

Anyway, we are way off topic now. I’m sure that Truth_Faith13’s eyes have glazed over by reading all this, if s/he even has. For my part, I’m done discussing this. Happy Advent and Merry Christmas.

I’m a she and I’ve read parts…this thread took off very quickly, when I have 10mins I am going to sit down and start from beginning.

Thanks for all of your replies…much appreciated!

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’m a she and I’ve read parts…this thread took off very quickly, when I have 10mins I am going to sit down and start from beginning.

Thanks for all of your replies…much appreciated!

You will need about an hour lol

 

[Nicea325]

Yet the RCC claims the very same as does Orthodoxy as well. Either every faith is wrong or they are all right to some degree.

Question for ya. I am not defending SS, but just interested. What foundation does Tradition have without Scripture? What I mean is in the US government we have the 3 branches of government that are there to balance one another. Well that is in a perfect world. lol I believe that Scripture cannot stand alone, yet Tradition needs Scripture to back it up. Tradition alone cannot stand.

The 3 legged stool.

Tradition preceded Scripture. Tell me what Scripture Abraham used?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Tradition preceded Scripture. Tell me what Scripture Abraham used?

I never stated that Tradition did not precede Scripture.

I simply stated in the post you quoted is that Tradition cannot stand alone with Scripture to back it up. Scripture cannot stand alone without Tradition to back it up.



Abraham talked with God. How is that a Tradition? It is stated in Scripture. I do not see how that relates to Tradition preceded Scripture argument. Please explain.