SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[benhur]

If the Church is not infallible in faith and doctrinal teachings, the Bible cannot be known as such either. If neither are what the Church claims, based on Apostolic teaching, why be Christian?

Hi S,

All I see in this is one tradition saying they are inerrant, infallible, unlike the other two traditional camps.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Who tells you, the Palestinian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Babylonian Jews, the Samaritan Jews, Essene Jews, Jewish Christians, Karaite Jews, God directly, King James?

Hi Sy,

Love this, but that Judaic mess makes me feel at home (as you can imagine coming from a Protestant, in one of 30,000 churches). Guess what else ?. Those teaching from the seat of Moses eventually developed not only some bad practices but had some, a little, leaven, as in doctrine.

Their Writ also began as normative. Eventually they developed commentaries (Mishnah) and then commentaries on the commentaries(Talmud). Each formed competing traditions, where the commentaries were of equal theopneustos authority as the original Writ. Sounds a bit familiar.

Yet, the Lord boldly tells the Samaritan women at the well, “Salvation is of the Jews.” !!!

The Lord perfectly kept His promise of guidance in covenant with the Jews, and the Messiah was perfectly delivered.

Just as our apparent good and bad and ugly of our covenant are really a beautiful bride in the making, just as He promised.

 

[benhur]

As Christ instituted His Magisterium constitutionally, in His Church with His mandate, who authorised and guaranteed the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, it is self-will that needs to be subordinated to reality and Truth.

Hi Abu,

Yes but which reality and truth ? There seems to be at least three camps/traditions.

Blessings

 

[SyCarl]

First, no good Catholic would disagree that we ought to know the Scriptures, and know them well. There was a time, even up until recent memory, when priests were required to memorize the entire Bible, and in some countries they still do that. (I’m not sure why they ever stopped.)

Second, there is nothing in this passage to signify that the Scriptures are the only source of good doctrine and morals. Indeed, if Augustine had sincerely thought the Scriptures were the sole authentic source of teaching, he would not have bothered either to write or to preach, and yet he did both, most prolifically. He was a Bishop (he was the Bishop of Hippo, which is one of the locations where the canon of the New Testament was discerned), so one may assume that he thought Bishops have authority to teach in the Church - and he was well aware of who set the canon of the Scriptures, since he was one of them (although he was only a priest at the time).

I am not claiming that there is no truth outside of Scripture but that it contains all that is necessary.

I am also aware that Augustine viewed toral tradition favourably such as:

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.

(Letter 54 to Januarius, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1102054.htm

If you read the rest of the letter though you see he is dealing with things like customary practices and not doctrine.

However Augustine also said that things not found in Scripture could be believed or not. They are optional.

I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not yet see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly…
But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.

(Letter 147, To Paulina), Fathers of the Church Volume 20, The Catholic University of America Press, 1953, pp 170 & 173

I can’t provide a link to the above as I took it from the e-book.

In another work he gives purgatory *** an example of something that is optional for belief,.

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

 

[jmcrae]

I am not claiming that there is no truth outside of Scripture but that it contains all that is necessary.

I am also aware that Augustine viewed toral tradition favourably such as:

(Letter 54 to Januarius, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1102054.htm

If you read the rest of the letter though you see he is dealing with things like customary practices and not doctrine.

However Augustine also said that things not found in Scripture could be believed or not. They are optional.

(Letter 147, To Paulina), Fathers of the Church Volume 20, The Catholic University of America Press, 1953, pp 170 & 173

I can’t provide a link to the above as I took it from the e-book.

In another work he gives purgatory *** an example of something that is optional for belief,.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

I think rather he is talking about what form Purgatory takes - whether it is a purifying fire, or something else. We simply do not know.

But since the subject of the Enchiridion is the “how to” process of getting souls out of Purgatory, it seems that he must have believed in Purgatory and also assumed that his readers did, also.

 

[Abu]

benhur #362
Yes but which reality and truth ? There seems to be at least three camps/traditions.

Every other “camp” discarded Christ’s own Church for their own fancies. Hence the reality of the loss of many truths. None of those purely human attempts can equal the significance of the assignment St Peter received when Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19).

SyCarl #363
I am not claiming that there is no truth outside of Scripture but that it contains all that is necessary.

Obviously not. For Christ gave us His Catholic Church, not Scripture, which His Catholic Church gave us as the Word of God. Quite obviously the Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

Further, private interpretation of the Scriptures cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning, marriage only between the opposite sex, and many other modern problems - this fact results in uncertainty, confusion and lack of unified Christian action as is so evident in the thousands of different sects acting differently.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hi Sy,

Love this, but that Judaic mess makes me feel at home (as you can imagine coming from a Protestant, in one of 30,000 churches). Guess what else ?. Those teaching from the seat of Moses eventually developed not only some bad practices but had some, a little, leaven, as in doctrine.

Their Writ also began as normative. Eventually they developed commentaries (Mishnah) and then commentaries on the commentaries(Talmud). Each formed competing traditions, where the commentaries were of equal theopneustos authority as the original Writ. Sounds a bit familiar.

Yet, the Lord boldly tells the Samaritan women at the well, “Salvation is of the Jews.” !!!

The Lord perfectly kept His promise of guidance in covenant with the Jews, and the Messiah was perfectly delivered.

Just as our apparent good and bad and ugly of our covenant are really a beautiful bride in the making, just as He promised.

So which OT Writ did you go with, and which do each of our esteemed Christian non-Catholic friends go with.l; and why?

 

[rcwitness]

I am not claiming that there is no truth outside of Scripture but that it contains all that is necessary.

I am also aware that Augustine viewed toral tradition favourably such as:

(Letter 54 to Januarius, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1102054.htm

If you read the rest of the letter though you see he is dealing with things like customary practices and not doctrine.

However Augustine also said that things not found in Scripture could be believed or not. They are optional.

(Letter 147, To Paulina), Fathers of the Church Volume 20, The Catholic University of America Press, 1953, pp 170 & 173

I can’t provide a link to the above as I took it from the e-book.

In another work he gives purgatory *** an example of something that is optional for belief,.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

Thanks for all the St Augustine passages! I think it is great to find common love for the Scriptures through Augustine’s wisdom! He and St Jerome are amazing men of God!

I get the impression that St Jerome expressed more esteem for the Bishop of Rome than did St Augustine. And this may have had some influence from Jerome’s good friendship with Pope Damasus? I know the next Pope was not as befriending to Jerome, right?

But i say this because, às much as we respect Augustine’s council and wisdom, we do not consider Him as Teacher of the whole Church like we do the Bishop of Rome. Só I wonder if Augustine Himself has expressed this about the Bishop of Rome. Did He expect the Church should recognize everything he believed?

 

[susanlo]

Shouldn’t we be seeing Scripture, clear and plainly, Teaching SS? I haven’t seen much Scripture support here.

I think it is implicit because Scripture is God’s word. Other writings are man’s teaching about God. If other writings are God-breathed, then they should be put in the Bible with the other books. If it isn’t God-breathed, then how could anyone think that it is as authoritative as God-breathed writing? No one suggests that there can’t be any other Christian teaching, but God’s word should be the primary source.

 

[rcwitness]

But i say this because, às much as we respect Augustine’s council and wisdom, we do not consider Him as Teacher of the whole Church like we do the Bishop of Rome. Só I wonder if Augustine Himself has expressed this about the Bishop of Rome. Did He expect the Church should recognize everything he believed?

…I will clarify the use of “Teacher of the Whole Church”. It is in the sense of Steward of the One Teacher, and yet a singular Bishopric.

Luke 12

Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”42And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?

John 21

Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep."

 

[alwayswill]

…
Shouldn’t we be seeing Scripture, clear and plainly, Teaching SS? I haven’t seen much Scripture support here.

I’ll say it again:
It is not a requirement for God to state HE is the Highest Authority for it to be true.
God is the highest authority because of who/what He is; not because of what He says

It is not a requirement for the Ten Commandments to state they are commands from God for it to be true…
They are commands from God because of what they are: not because of what they say.

IN THE SAME WAY:
It is not a requirement for Scripture to state that God breathed writings carry the same authority as God for it to be true.
Scripture is the highest authority because of what it is; not because of what it says.

The “show me in Scripture where SS is stated” is an apologetic dead-end.

Catholic apologists are not going to win any “debate points” with SS practicing Christians unless Catholics require God Himself to state He is the highest authority for it to be true.

I don’t think any Catholic is willing to require that of God;
and SS practicing Christians don’t require that from writings breathed out from God.

Scripture is the highest authority because of what Scripture is;
not because of what Scripture says.

So then:
Regarding the authority of Scripture: What do you say Scripture is?
(it’s the characteristics or attributes; not what is Scripture)

 

[rcwitness]

I’ll say it again:
It is not a requirement for God to state HE is the Highest Authority for it to be true.
God is the highest authority because of who/what He is; not because of what He says

It is not a requirement for the Ten Commandments to state they are commands from God for it to be true…
They are commands from God because of what they are: not because of what they say.

IN THE SAME WAY:
It is not a requirement for Scripture to state that God breathed writings carry the same authority as God for it to be true.
Scripture is the highest authority because of what it is; not because of what it says.

The “show me in Scripture where SS is stated” is an apologetic dead-end.

Catholic apologists are not going to win any “debate points” with SS practicing Christians unless Catholics require God Himself to state He is the highest authority for it to be true.

I don’t think any Catholic is willing to require that of God;
and SS practicing Christians don’t require that from writings breathed out from God.

Scripture is the highest authority because of what Scripture is;
not because of what Scripture says.

So then:
What do you say Scripture is?
(it’s the characteristics or attributes; not what is Scripture)

I have expressed what I, as a Catholic, believe what Scripture is. And it is not different than what SS believers profess!

This is not the source of contention with the doctrine. The problem is that without a Church leadership able to discern Tradition, Teaching (interpretation), a Canon, and current application of Scripture to issues, the Scriptures are not very productive. It does NOT take away from the fact that they are from God, and carry supreme authority! It means that the authority God gave to men who serve in the offices of the Church they were ordained into is rejected, and so rendering the power of the Scriptures oppressed.

When there are disputes over the meaning and practice of Scripture, what are Christians suppose to do???

Jesus tells us IN Scripture! And He does not tell us to go to Scripture. Though I agree that we able to use Scripture to come to right understanding. Nevertheless, under situations when Scripture is lacking because of men, we have the Church to appeal to. And Jesus says:

“If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

 

[benhur]

So which OT Writ did you go with, and which do each of our esteemed Christian non-Catholic friends go with l; and why?

Oh brother , I give you a pearl and you find a spec. I go macro and you go micro. All works of art have to be viewed standing back a bit. Look to close , and looks like a mess.

But I do like a good debate, and canon formation is a fascinating topic. It usually ends up with several different traditional views which contain similar elements. Just that they differ on highlighting those elements, and just how God is glorified thru receivers and carriers of Writ.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

It’s as though the Catholic faith is more SS than the denominations. Or that SS itself is an abuse of the Scriptures. NOT on account of the esteem and veneration assigned to Scripture, but the lack of submitting to the Person of Jesus whom Scripture testifies is with the Church as well as Scripture!

 

[benhur]

Every other “camp” discarded Christ’s own Church for their own fancies. Hence the reality of the loss of many truths. None of those purely human attempts can equal the significance of the assignment St Peter received when Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19).

Understand Abu. It is all the other camps that are fanciful with a bit of leaven but not yours. Their HIStory telling is biased but not yours. That is certainly one of the traditions (the infallible three legs), which you faithfully and passionately represent.

Blessings

 

[alwayswill]

I have expressed what I, as a Catholic, believe what Scripture is. And it is not different than what SS believers profess!

This is not the source of contention with the doctrine. The problem is that without a Church leadership able to discern Tradition, Teaching (interpretation), a Canon, and current application of Scripture to issues, the Scriptures are not very productive. It does NOT take away from the fact that they are from God, and carry supreme authority! It means that the authority God gave to men who serve in the offices of the Church they were ordained into is rejected, and so rendering the power of the Scriptures oppressed.

When there are disputes over the meaning and practice of Scripture, what are Christians suppose to do???

Jesus tells us IN Scripture! And He does not tell us to go to Scripture. Though I agree that we able to use Scripture to come to right understanding. Nevertheless, under situations when Scripture is lacking because of men, we have the Church to appeal to. And Jesus says:

“If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

You have already agreed that misunderstanding an authority does not diminish that authority.
If every single person was a god-denying- atheist; God would still be supreme

The US Constitution grants authoritative to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s authority is NOT equal to that of US Constitution.

the “grantor” of authority is always greater than the “receiver” of authority.

The dispute (as I see it) is the claim that the Church is equal to authority to Scripture…

There is a big elephant in the room; which I have been hesitant to bring up.
How do Catholics handle disputes over the meaning and interpretation of their Church’s authoritative teachings?
see Amoris Laetitia, or Unam sanctam)
(but I do not want to derail this thread)

 

[rcwitness]

You have already agreed that misunderstanding an authority does not diminish that authority.
If every single person was a god-denying- atheist; God would still be supreme

The US Constitution grants authoritative to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s authority is NOT equal to that of US Constitution.

the “grantor” of authority is always greater than the “receiver” of authority.

The dispute (as I see it) is the claim that the Church is equal to authority to Scripture…

There is a big elephant in the room; which I have been hesitant to bring up.
How do Catholics handle disputes over the meaning and interpretation of their Church’s authoritative teachings?
see Amoris Laetitia, or Unam sanctam)
(but I do not want to derail this thread)

That’s just it, if you want to liken the Church with the United States and her Court and constitution, then I think it support the Catholic position much better!

The Court is called Supreme, because it is greater than the States. Likewise the See of Rome is greater than the others. And the Magisterium is not greater than Scripture, but gives a Supreme judgment over the churches.

 

[alwayswill]

That’s just it, if you want to liken the Church with the United States and her Court and constitution, then I think it support the Catholic position much better!

The Court is called Supreme, because it is greater than the States. Likewise the See of Rome is greater than the others. And the Magisterium is not greater than Scripture, but gives a Supreme judgment over the churches.

now were are making progress!!

“the Magisterium is not greater than Scripture,”
We agree!

But is the Magisterium EQUAL to Scripture?

 

[rcwitness]

now were are making progress!!

“the Magisterium is not greater than Scripture,”
We agree!

But is the Magisterium EQUAL to Scripture?

Do you recognize a Magisterium set over the house of God?

She has authority from God. It is not greater than Scriptures authority. It is eaqual. Yet Scripture is more than mere authority. It is Divine Revelation!

The Church does not only have Scripture, but the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. Scripture does not have this.

 

[rcwitness]

John 5

You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;**yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.