SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[rcwitness]

Hirc,

Perfect. I have to go , but thanks for the final laugh.

Blessings

:tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Yes and it is that living community which has evolved in how it views its authority.

I think this is true. Jesus commissioned the apostles in the same way that He was sent “with all authority”, but how that authority developed and has been exercised has grown, like a small mustard seed into a great tree.

That community did not begin thinking its authority was "theopneustos",or equal to Apostolic oral or Writ tradition.

I think it did, benhur. I don’t see any other way you can understand the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts5

At least they were distinct authorities. One was normative , the other more administrative. One administered the Truth as found in Apostolic tradition and its Writ. The "administration'' did not become another source for the "Word of God" (which was already complete).

If I understand what you are saying here correctly, it is the job of the teaching authority appointed by Christ to be the pillar and the ground of Truth, to apply the teachings that were placed into the Church by God through the Word of God and the Holy Scripture.

Hi G,

OK. It is part of the stool. I would say it is a one legged stool then, as in the “Church” being the leg. What she carries on top, what she is a* pillar *of, is Apostolic tradition and their Writ, normative Truth.

I can see your point. The three work together to support the faithful in learning and living the Kingdom, so it is referred to as a three legged stool.

Just do not see binding and loosing , though Holy Spirit guided, as theopneustos.

Well, God breathed upon them…21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

There is no other way to have this kind of authority unless it is Breathed upon them from God. But we do usually refer to the Magesterium that way. We see how it functions in the book of Acts at the first council of Jerusalem.

28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 15:28

When the Magesterium makes a decision with the HS, it is infallible because it is animated by the HS.

Do not see the “carrier” of Truth as inerrant as the Truth itself is. That idea evolved, was not from the beginning, in my opinion.

It seems like one has to throw out quite a bit of scripture to hold this view.

PS- I think stool is self serving to CC purposes. I prefer the figure scripture uses, a “building”, its foundation is the prophets and apostles with succeeding generations being laid there upon, We are the living stones about to be added .

Yes, this is a good scriptural image.

My inference above of a one legged stool gives the indication of wobbliness, lacking a sure foundation. While the current living stones may be "wobbly’, even containing wood, hay and stubble, our inerrant foundation is not.

I don’t think any foundation stone that it truly grafted into Christ can be “wobbly”.

 

[Abu]

benhur #570
Understand there is no "new "revelation, but still there is revelation on an “old” matter, such as Assumption and IC for example , as declared as the “Word of God”, or as theopneustos, standing equal as and with Apostolic oral and Writ tradition. Hence adding another “leg” to “revelation”.

As crystal clearly stated often, we see from Pope Pius XI’s Humani Generis, 21:
“Together with the sources of revelation (Scripture and Tradition) God has given to His Church a living Magisterium to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and, as it were, by implication.”

As always, the straw that breaks the camel’s back is the refusal to follow Christ’s institution of his teaching authority in His Church – the Magisterium. The Christ made His Catholic Church infallible in teaching doctrine (how could She be otherwise?).

#573
Just do not see binding and loosing , though Holy Spirit guided, as theopneustos.

How very strange to doubt Christ’s clear statement in Holy Scripture as divinely inspired, when He mandated:
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19).

Do not see the “carrier” of Truth as inerrant as the Truth itself is. That idea evolved, was not from the beginning, in my opinion.

Christ does not recognise “opinion” in His mandate, only His Truth which he very clearly established as:
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18).

 

[jlhargus]

Umm… so what? Individual bishops disagreeing with each other is not “Church teaching”. Bishops can disagree whether they want to use incense at Mass or not, or whether HolyDays are obligatory in their diocese. These are not separate Church creating disagreements.

If your question is substantial enough, the Church will give a definitive final answer in time. How do you find out this answer in your church?

None of us laymen are capable of interpreting who can or can’t receive Communion. Only the diocesan/eparchial Bishop can decide in his diocese/eparchy. This is a disciplinary question.

Depends on their reasoning.

You went to a schismatic forum to prove that Catholicism is in disagreement? Clearly, this proves that those that disagree enough will separate themselves from the Church, because they disagree with Her.

That site is a separatist site, they clearly identify as such. Here is the Main Forum Header:
“Until Rome Converts This is Our Position” – they are self-identified as out of Communion with the Catholic Church.

Good job, thanks for answering I couldn’t get the time to answer.

 

[jlhargus]

HI Sy,

Straw man. Every denomination has authority or “mechanism” within itself to “suppress” '(interesting and telling word ). There are a few churches in my area that were once Roman Catholic. They were “suppressed” by the Catholic bishop, and just moved down the street with another name. Sounds familiar. Blessings

What Diocese is that I would like to look that up.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi G,

Understand there is no "new "revelation, but still there is revelation on an “old” matter, such as Assumption and IC for example , as declared as the “Word of God”, or as theopneustos, standing equal as and with Apostolic oral and Writ tradition. Hence adding another “leg” to “revelation”.
No difference. If a Southern Baptist loses its "credentials’’ as such, they can no longer be identified as Southern Baptist. They have lost there Sothern Baptist identity.

Blessings

Big difference. The Southern Baptists lost their Catholic identity (their connection to Christ) back in the 1500s.

 

[benhur]

Big difference. The Southern Baptists lost their Catholic identity (their connection to Christ) back in the 1500s.

Hi J,

Yes they most certainly were cut off from Roman Catholicism.

The context of the posts was that Southern Baptists do have the same mechanism Catholics have of excommunication within its own church. Hence no difference in this regard.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

What Diocese is that I would like to look that up.

huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/excommunicated-church-thr_n_846339.html

 

[benhur]

How very strange to doubt Christ’s clear statement in Holy Scripture as divinely inspired, when He mandated:
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19).

Hi Abu,

Precisely. What is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth, thru the Church. It is conditionally inerrant. She can not bind what is not bound in heaven. She can not loose what is not loosed in heaven

Christ does not recognize “opinion” in His mandate, only His Truth which he very clearly established as:

Precisely again. The Peter and the rock discourse is the theopneustos Word of God. An opinion/interpretation on it *may or may not be *equally inerrant. The Word of God is a our normative revelation. What it means is conditionally understood, the goal being inerrancy by abiding in the Holy Ghost on the matter. To claim impossibility of errantcy is presumptuous and dangerous, in my opinion, and opposed to your (CC) opinion…

Blessings

 

[clem456]

Hi Abu,

Precisely. What is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth, thru the Church. It is conditionally inerrant. She can not bind what is not bound in heaven. She can not loose what is not loosed in heaven
Precisely again. The Peter and the rock discourse is the theopneustos Word of God. An opinion/interpretation on it *may or may not be *equally inerrant. The Word of God is a our normative revelation. What it means is conditionally understood, the goal being inerrancy by abiding in the Holy Ghost on the matter. To claim impossibility of errantcy is presumptuous and dangerous, in my opinion, and opposed to your (CC) opinion…

Blessings

Do you believe Jesus is God in the flesh?
If so, how do you find error in his words that come to you through Scripture itself?
How are his person, his life, and his words defective that we must wait for some future date to give our con-fide to him?

If we were only to be bound at some future date alone, why did God bother to come down here and live among men.
Is Jesus Christ God’s full and final revelation, or was a he a ghost of a man with a kiss and a promise?

 

[benhur]

I think this is true. Jesus commissioned the apostles in the same way that He was sent “with all authority”, but how that authority developed and has been exercised has grown, like a small mustard seed into a great tree.

H ig,

Perhaps, perhaps not. Even a great tree needs pruning and care. Certainly the Orthodox challenge some of that evolving as “unnecessary”, not to mention reformers.

We are told about a sure foundation, but thereafter to also about wood, hay, and stubble being added thereupon.

I think it did, benhur. I don’t see any other way you can understand the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts5

That is "Apostolic’’ for it is both in Writ, and via an apostle. SS deals with the church* beyond *our initial foundation (Apostles oral and Writ ). To say that then the bishop of Rome is equal to Peter and his writ ad infinitum is the question, by many.

If I understand what you are saying here correctly, it is the job of the teaching authority appointed by Christ to be the pillar and the ground of Truth, to apply the teachings that were placed into the Church by God through the Word of God and the Holy Scripture

Yes, to apply, administer, Apostolic teaching, especially, distinctly as recorded in Writ.

I can see your point. The three work together to support the faithful in learning and living the Kingdom, so it is referred to as a three legged stool.

No, a one legged stool. What the pillar supports is distinct from the pillar and not equal in function. Apostolic tradition and her Writ composes inerrant Truth, which we are to carry. It is presumption that the carrier is infallible as Writ or an apostle itself. That is the goal, and is achievable, thru the Holy Ghost. To say she can never, ever miss the mark is debatable due to Writ and history.

Well, God breathed upon them…21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Correct. These were the apostles. Again, SS deals with what about their successors. Did God equally breathe upon them ? Who receives the Holy Spirit now etc.? .

When the Magesterium makes a decision with the HS, it is infallible because it is animated by the HS.

Yes, and the “when/with” is the question. Luther did not seem to think that the magisterium was as stable as apostolic teaching/Writ, that* the when/with is not always*.

It seems like one has to throw out quite a bit of scripture to hold this view.

Only Catholic interpretation of said scripture. Reformers thought such interpretations “threw out” original intent of apostolic teaching /Writ on this matter.

I don’t think any foundation stone that it* truly grafted *into Christ can be “wobbly”.

Correct. A one leg must be "true’’, perfectly centered, perfectly aligned measurement to avoid wobble. That we will be presented perfectly aligned as a Bride does not negate the wood, hay and stubble (misalignment) that must be dealt with. The two somehow coexist for now.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

benhur #588
To claim impossibility of errantcy is presumptuous and dangerous, in my opinion

That’s your perennial problem – your own mere “opinion” – the refusal to follow Christ who specifically is recorded as absolutely mandating, in what you claim to believe is the Word of God, received only through the compilation, care, fidelity and authority of His own Catholic Church, that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” with His chosen Peter being entrusted with “the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven”, and Christ with His Church “until the end of time”.

That very opinionated error, that what the Christ solemnly instituted and commanded is “presumptuous and dangerous”, personifies the substitution of a selfist opinion for the reality. The result – the thousands of differing sects lacking so much of the essentials of faith and worship, by rejecting Christ’s Church.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Even a great tree needs pruning and care. Certainly the Orthodox challenge some of that evolving as “unnecessary”, not to mention reformers.

Men are always in need of reform, but the doctrines of Christ are not. It is Jesus’ Church, and He will reform her as He sees fit.

   We are told about a sure foundation, but thereafter to also about wood,  hay, and stubble being added thereupon.

I don’t think so, benhur. I think these other elements were substituted for the firm foundation.

To say that then the bishop of Rome is equal to Peter and his writ ad infinitum is the question, by many.

In that case, clearly the “many” do not understand the gift of infallibility Jesus gave to the Church.

It amazes me how vast is the human imagination, and how easily it causes misunderstandings of what Catholics believe.

 

[thecolorsblend]

In that case, clearly the “many” do not understand the gift of infallibility Jesus gave to the Church.

It amazes me how vast is the human imagination, and how easily it causes misunderstandings of what Catholics believe.

I think a reasonable question to ask concerns the Council of Jerusalem. It was convoked and then adjourned before the New Testament canon had even been completely written, much less compiled into a single volume.

And yet the pronouncements issued by the Council of Jerusalem were understood to be binding upon the Christian world.

But was the Council instantly binding? If the answer is “Yes”, that’s admitting that at least at one point in time the Church leadership had some kind of teaching authority that Christians were expected to obey.

So when exactly did that change? Catholics can point out that the Church retains her teaching authority; nothing has changed since the Council of Jerusalem. But someone who rejects the Magisterium might have a harder time explaining when, how and why the Church lost her teaching authority which she clearly had during the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

I think a reasonable question to ask concerns the Council of Jerusalem. It was convoked and then adjourned before the New Testament canon had even been completely written, much less compiled into a single volume.

And yet the pronouncements issued by the Council of Jerusalem were understood to be binding upon the Christian world.

A tad bit of an apples to oranges comparison. The burden would be on the one making this argument that the present period is analogous to the apostolic period. It isn’t (Which the Catholic Church acknowledges). The ones gathered there were the authors of Scripture. The same cannot be said of their successors.

But was the Council instantly binding? If the answer is “Yes”, that’s admitting that at least at one point in time the Church leadership had some kind of teaching authority that Christians were expected to obey.

Church authority is always expected to be obeyed. As long as that authority is concurrent with the teaching of the men at that first council. That teaching is found primarily in their writings.

So when exactly did that change? Catholics can point out that the Church retains her teaching authority; nothing has changed since the Council of Jerusalem. But someone who rejects the Magisterium might have a harder time explaining when, how and why the Church lost her teaching authority which she clearly had during the Council of Jerusalem.

As above, it’s not an issue of whether the church has authority. It’s a question of degree, not kind. The church receives no new revelation. Therefore, it is dependent on what came before. The Apostles were receiving new information. We are not.

 

[Abu]

Anglicanus Rex #594
As above, it’s not an issue of whether the church has authority. It’s a question of degree, not kind. The church receives no new revelation. Therefore, it is dependent on what came before. The Apostles were receiving new information. We are not.

As long as it is understood that doctrine develops and that is why the Catholic Church can proclaim the Assumption as a dogma.

From Pope Pius XI’s Humani Generis, 21:
“Together with the sources of revelation (Scripture and Tradition) God has given to His Church a living Magisterium to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and, as it were, by implication.”

 

[thecolorsblend]

A tad bit of an apples to oranges comparison. The burden would be on the one making this argument that the present period is analogous to the apostolic period. It isn’t (Which the Catholic Church acknowledges). The ones gathered there were the authors of Scripture. The same cannot be said of their successors.

No it wouldn’t. The principle is the Church has teaching authority; specifically that such is not the purview only of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

No it wouldn’t. The principle is the Church has teaching authority; specifically that such is not the purview only of Sacred Scripture.

Yes; but every Reformation church body believes that the church has teaching authority. The difference between Rome and the reformers, as in my last post, is degree.

 

[guanophore]

Yes; but every Reformation church body believes that the church has teaching authority. The difference between Rome and the reformers, as in my last post, is degree.

What is the Anglican definition of “church”?

How is “teaching authority” defined or recognized?

 

[Anglicanus_Rex]

What is the Anglican definition of “church”?

The visible congregation of the baptized, under the authority of a bishop (through the presbyters and deacons) where the word of God is preached and the sacraments of Christ administered as he instituted them.

How is “teaching authority” defined or recognized?

Through the bishops in succession from the apostles.