Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[justasking4]

De Maria;3304832]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Why discuss it only with a Jew? Surely you could defend it before a protestant could you not?

De Maria;
The statement that the Catholic Church knows the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews themselves? No. Because Protestants don’t understand Jewish insights.

I can take this statement of yours and apply it to protestants. You as a catholic cannot understand protestant doctrines. I suspect i could find a number of protestant scholars and pastors that do indeed understand Jewish insights.

But I can change the statement thus and address it to Protestants. We believe the Catholic Church knows the Scriptures, Old and New Testament better than Protestnts. That means you.

What do you mean by “better”? I know of some very knowledgeable protestants that teach at a seminary level. Would people like this apply?

Quote:justasking4
Here is what i beleive Sola Scriptura is:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

De Maria;
Great! Where is that in Scripture?

You won’t find such a statement in the Scriptures per se but the meaning is derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves as being inspired-inerrant. From that, the definition follows.

Quote:justasking4
This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

De Maria;
You did great in defining YOUR belief. But I don’t see any reference from Scripture which says that Scripture is the ONLY infallible rule of faith.

Again it doesn’t but follows from what i wrote previously.

So, please enlighten me.

Hopefully you have a better understanding.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[MarcoPolo]

A way of saying that there is no inherent quality of a Pope or of the Church to interpet the Bible in a final way. Objectively, how is this belief less reasonable than the belief that only the Church can validly interpet the Bible?

If you want the Catholic take, refer to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (IBC) (1993)If, as noted above, the Scriptures belong to the entire church and are part of “the heritage of the faith,” which all, pastors and faithful, “preserve, profess and put into practice in a communal effort,” it nevertheless remains true that “responsibility for authentically interpreting the word of God, as transmitted by Scripture and tradition, has been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church, which exercises its authority in the name of Jesus Christ” (“Dei Verbum,” 10). [III.B.3)

That’s why the Church can interpret in a final way. It holds the authority from Christ via apostolic succession. And of course Scripture has shown that Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation (2 Pt 1:20)…that’s why the Catholic Church emphasizes interpretation in light of the living tradition of the Church.

Earlier in the document it also reads “all the members of the church have a role in the interpretation of Scripture.” So, yes, we can all provide insights, but not all can guarantee an authentic interpretation except the Magisterium. A Protestant pastor could certainly come up with a valid interpretation, but only the Church can guarantee that as an authentic interpretation.

 

[justasking4]

If you want the Catholic take, refer to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (IBC) (1993)If, as noted above, the Scriptures belong to the entire church and are part of “the heritage of the faith,” which all, pastors and faithful, “preserve, profess and put into practice in a communal effort,” it nevertheless remains true that "responsibility for authentically interpreting the word of God, as transmitted by Scripture and tradition, has been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church, which exercises its authority in the name of Jesus Christ" (“Dei Verbum,” 10). [III.B.3)

That’s why the Church can interpret in a final way. It holds the authority from Christ via apostolic succession. And of course Scripture has shown that Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation (2 Pt 1:20)…that’s why the Catholic Church emphasizes interpretation in light of the living tradition of the Church.

Earlier in the document it also reads “all the members of the church have a role in the interpretation of Scripture.” So, yes, we can all provide insights, but not all can guarantee an authentic interpretation except the Magisterium. A Protestant pastor could certainly come up with a valid interpretation, but only the Church can guarantee that as an authentic interpretation.

If it is true that the “has been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church, which exercises its authority in the name of Jesus Christ” why has it interpreted infallibly less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? There are thousands of other verses that have not been interpreted then. This means that over 99% of the scriptures for catholics has no “authentic interpretation”. This also means any catholic cannot know with any certainty what a particular verse or passage means.

 

[De_Maria]

I can take this statement of yours and apply it to protestants. You as a catholic cannot understand protestant doctrines.

I’ve never attempted to speak for Protestants.

I suspect i could find a number of protestant scholars and pastors that do indeed understand Jewish insights.

Feel free to debate with them concerning their insights. I am here to debate any Protestants or Jews who claim that Sola Scriptura is supported by Scripture.

What do you mean by “better”? I know of some very knowledgeable protestants that teach at a seminary level. Would people like this apply?

Yes.

You won’t find such a statement in the Scriptures per se but the meaning is derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves as being inspired-inerrant. From that, the definition follows.

No, it doesn’t.

Here’s your biggest problem. You have produced a definition which you can’t find in Scripture. Therefore, it is YOU that is portraying your definition as the rule of faith since you can’t prove that Scripture says any such thing.

Here’s another. Some Catholic doctrines are explicit in Scripture. But most Catholic doctrines are implied in Scripture. When the Catholic Church defines a doctrine which is implied in Scripture YOU demand an explicit proof from Scripture. Yet you can’t provide an explicit proof from Scripture for your most important doctrine.

So, your doctrine, your belief is both illogical and self contradicting.

Again it doesn’t but follows from what i wrote previously.

You wish. It is perfectly obvious that you can’t prove your doctrine from Scripture.

Hopefully you have a better understanding.

That is what I’ve been trying to tell you, Catholics have a better understanding of Scripture than Protestants.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ralphinal]

Valke,
I did not see many answers to your question. I may have missed them. If I remove my Catholic glasses, and think as a third party, yes, it is as illogical. It swings the pendulum too far the other way.

There is a logic in saying that God provided a means to interpret and judge. Why is it illogical to think that God would give a Church to help guide men? Likewise, it makes sense that God gave scriptures to men that we all may know of His glory. Now, to say that God did not found a church and it is scripture only creates a free for all with interpretation. That is evident.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If it is true that the “has been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church, which exercises its authority in the name of Jesus Christ” why has it interpreted infallibly less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? There are thousands of other verses that have not been interpreted then. This means that over 99% of the scriptures for catholics has no “authentic interpretation”. This also means any catholic cannot know with any certainty what a particular verse or passage means.

Are you using the “Catholics are wrong because they don’t submit to my criteria” argument? That’s like saying “God isn’t real because otherwise why doesn’t He just save everybody like I would want Him to.” It’s also like saying “Catholics have 1% authentic interpretation, but I prefer to choose a faith with 0%.”

Your question can only be asked if you start with the presupposition that it is NOT Christ working through the Church when the Church makes a declaration.

At any rate, your statement is not entirely true.

From Vatican I:*Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.*Your statement only considers the “solemn judgment” declarations of the Magisterium, which are specific statements about those verses. You did not consider the truth from the ordinary Magisterium. Your statement ignores all the uses of volumes and volumes of Scripture verses used to make other statements in various encyclicals, councils, the Catechism, etc…

Hope this post is helpful to lurkers out there.

 

[JesseW]

Jesse,

Where Luther supported the Creeds, he would support the one Church.

There is nothing in the Creeds (I assume you mean the Apostles’ and the Nicene) which supports Sola Scriptura.

Robert

Yes, there isn’t anything in the Creeds that support Sola Scriptura that I am aware of. As I understand it, as far as Church unity as discussed in the Creeds, Luther believed that the Gospel had become so distorted that division was better than the status quo of widely held practices such as paying one’s way into heaven, etc. through indulgences. This is the conclusion that the Reformers reached, that if this was an end product of elevating Tradition equal to or above Scripture, that Scripture needed to trump Tradition to avoid more of the same. I wish changes could have been made from within the Church so that the rift could be avoided, but it was the Catholic Church who refused to debate the use of Indulgences with Luther while he was still one of their own.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Luther believed that the Gospel had become so distorted that division was better than the status quo of widely held practices such as paying one’s way into heaven, etc. through indulgences.

I am not aware of any “status quo” of paying one’s way into heaven…are you talking about Luther’s debate with Tetzel? Indulgences for their part don’t get you into heaven…they alleviate temporal punishment for sins already forgiven.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I am not aware of any “status quo” of paying one’s way into heaven…are you talking about Luther’s debate with Tetzel? Indulgences for their part don’t get you into heaven…they alleviate temporal punishment for sins already forgiven.

The indulgence issue was the excuse. Princes love the monies that tithing and Church property brings in. Look at all those “national” churches created out of Luther et al.

Other bishops criticized Tetzel and the Pope later reprimanded him for his (to be charitable) “zeal.”

So, I don’t like what my local bishop says about going to confession before Easter Sunday: I am going to start my own church!

Robert

 

[Namesake]

But the question is, why should the belief that the Catholic Church is the only authority capable of interpeting bible verse, be more valid than the belief that any other denomination’s clergy is capable of interpeting bible verse?

Because the Catholic church says so. It’s always that argument.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

That’s not the reason nor is that the question.

As I and others have explained to you, Valke2, the ‘Bible’ is used for the Mass (Divine Liturgy in the Eastern Churches) in a way similar to that of the early Jewish practice on High Holy Days.

Indeed, the Book of Revelations is made visual and real everyday the Mass and the DL are celebrated. It is NOT a secret code of when and how the world will end.

The Church (Catholic and Orthodox) does not need the Bible to teach what Jesus wanted the nations to know.

Interpretation (post 1520s) has always been about what constitutes Christianity for the Protestants. For the Catholic and Orthodox it was not so; it was more midrash on the OT and how Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy and the Covenant with Abraham.

Robert

 

[justasking4]

Are you using the “Catholics are wrong because they don’t submit to my criteria” argument? That’s like saying “God isn’t real because otherwise why doesn’t He just save everybody like I would want Him to.” It’s also like saying “Catholics have 1% authentic interpretation, but I prefer to choose a faith with 0%.”

Your question can only be asked if you start with the presupposition that it is NOT Christ working through the Church when the Church makes a declaration.

At any rate, your statement is not entirely true.

From Vatican I:Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.Your statement only considers the “solemn judgment” declarations of the Magisterium, which are specific statements about those verses. You did not consider the truth from the ordinary Magisterium. Your statement ignores all the uses of volumes and volumes of Scripture verses used to make other statements in various encyclicals, councils, the Catechism, etc…

Hope this post is helpful to lurkers out there.

Lets see if i understand you. Are you saying that if you want to know what a particular verse or passage means you could go to some volume somewhere to find your answer? If that is the case, who in the catholic church would or could do this?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

It’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Each section (paragraph) is referenced to the source which leads to Scriptural foundation. In most cases, biblical citations are given.

Further, most Apostolic Letters and Motus and Encyclicals from the Pope (including letters from local Bishops and books published with the imprimatur and nihil obstat) make reference to Scripture and Early Church Fathers on various teachings.

And like the Lectionary we put together in the late 60s and early 70s, some mainstream Protestant churches use it (like the Anglican and Lutheran).

Robert

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Because the Catholic church says so. It’s always that argument.

Very good, Namesake; That’s exactly right. Always! That’s exactly our argument. Always - ever since the days of the Apostles.

The thing that bothers me about Sola Scripture it that it is unscriptural.

 

[Valke2]

Valke,
I did not see many answers to your question. I may have missed them. If I remove my Catholic glasses, and think as a third party, yes, it is as illogical. It swings the pendulum too far the other way.

There is a logic in saying that God provided a means to interpret and judge. Why is it illogical to think that God would give a Church to help guide men? Likewise, it makes sense that God gave scriptures to men that we all may know of His glory. Now, to say that God did not found a church and it is scripture only creates a free for all with interpretation. That is evident.

BOth sides have their pluses and minuses. I don’t think that saying the Church is to be the central authority appointed by God is necessarily less logical than saying we each can read the bible and have the spirit of God reveal its truth to us. Of course, as a Jew I don’t really have a vested interest in this issue. However, I’ve been struggling lately with reconciling my faith with modern biblical scholarship, so while the details of the dispute between Church and Protestantism(sp?) may be different, the overall issues regarding traditional vs. modern interpretation interests me.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Lets see if i understand you. Are you saying that if you want to know what a particular verse or passage means you could go to some volume somewhere to find your answer?

You sure could. Pickup a Catechism. There will probably be several citations of Scripture at the bottom of every page. Or read a dogmatic proclamation that uses Scripture to explain something.
You can find the Church using Scripture in all kinds of authoritative documents and drawing from passages a certain meaning.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Very good, Namesake; That’s exactly right. Always! That’s exactly our argument. Always - ever since the days of the Apostles.

The thing that bothers me about Sola Scripture it that it is unscriptural.

Make sure to include that when the Church defines something, it is Christ doing so via the Church. So when I hear someone say, “Oh, so the Catholic Church says so” I hear “Oh, so Jesus says so.” Whoever hears you hears me. There is this myth that the Catholic Church is just going around making declarations at random with no rhyme or reason…

 

[MarcoPolo]

dispute between Church and Protestantism(sp?) may be different, the overall issues regarding traditional vs. modern interpretation interests me.

Curious, which traditional and modern interpretations do you mean?

 

[Valke2]

Curious, which traditional and modern interpretations do you mean?

For me, traditional means the commentary of the sages of the 1st through 3rd centuries, upon which most other jewish commentary is based. Modern would be interpretations of modern biblical scholarship over the last150 years or so, which take into account outside sources, archeological findings, differences in use of language, etc., much of which was not available to the ancient (“traditional”) scholars.

 

[Gara3987]

Because the doctrines of the Catholic Church are all consistent with Scripture. Whereas, reformed Christian doctrine, such as Scripture alone, contradicts Scripture.

In fact, and with all due respect, any doctrine, Jewish, Christian or otherwise, which contradicts Catholic Teaching also contradicts Scripture (I’m including the Tanach in the word Scripture.)

I know that sounds provocative, but we believe that the Catholic Church knows the Jewish Scriptures better than the Jews themselves.

St. John 5:37 And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38 And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. 39 Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. 40 And you will not come to me that you may have life.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Excellent answer, very clear and strait to the point