The Catholic Church and Scripture...Please discuss

[ralphinal]

This is from this site

Now, let’s start here

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68

Does anyone take exception to that passage?

 

[AmateurPianist]

This is from this site

Now, let’s start here

Does anyone take exception to that passage?

Hi Ralph:

I will help bump your thread back to the top.

Usually when I read the Catholic Catechism I come back asking myself…what is it saying again?

That having been said, at first glance this sounds good. But maybe as I think about it I will come up with a nitpick.

 

[JonNC]

This is from this site

Now, let’s start here

Does anyone take exception to that passage?

On it’s face, no problem.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

I thought it would be easier to break it down into smaller sections. That first part seemed easy enough to process and I thought most would accept it.

Next bit

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Any statements>

 

[stcalixtus]

This is from this site

Now, let’s start here

Does anyone take exception to that passage?

No…not at all the catechism is church doctrine, I believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ, I buy 100% into the Catholic church and you or no one else will sway me from the truth…rather suffer the fate of a martyr than lose my faith…understand?:knight1:

 

[peary1]

This is from this site

Now, let’s start here

Does anyone take exception to that passage?

The Gospel of John begins in this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the **Word was God. **He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)

The Gospel tells us that JESUS IS THE WORD and that JESUS IS GOD.

 

[Hisalone]

I thought it would be easier to break it down into smaller sections. That first part seemed easy enough to process and I thought most would accept it.

Next bit

Any statements>

Is the word of God Christ? scripture? words spoken by a prophet while inspired? words of a preacher who proclaims the gospel?

It is all the above.

 

[JonNC]

I thought it would be easier to break it down into smaller sections. That first part seemed easy enough to process and I thought most would accept it.

Next bit

Any statements>

Again, no problem to here.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

I think that the second section that I posted does a good job of tying the Word that is Jesus with the Word that is Scriptures.

We are about to hit the parts where non-Catholics may not agree, so I may break them down into smaller pieces.

Also, no footnotes are included in my posts. If you want to see them, let me know.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

 

[spockrates]

This is from this site

Now, let’s start here

Does anyone take exception to that passage?

My guess is that the passage is a play on words comparing the “words of Sacred Scripture” with the “Word of God.” It’s an example of the old philosophical paradox of the one and the many. The One, in this case, is the mind of God in its entirety. The many are the individual thoughts of God expressed in the Bible. In the case of the many, we do not have the full mind of God, but only His thoughts in part. In the case of the One, who can ever know it fully?

The interesting questions to me are these: How much of the One Living Word of God is contained in the many words of the written word of God? Does the written word of God have all we need, or is it incomplete or unclear? The answers to these questions are what divide Catholics and Protestants and Mormons, as well as Muslims and Jewish people. They are worth considering and discussing. Don’t you think?

 

[ralphinal]

My guess is that the passage is a play on words comparing the “words of Sacred Scripture” with the “Word of God.” It’s an example of the old philosophical paradox of the one and the many. The One, in this case, is the mind of God in its entirety. The many are the individual thoughts of God expressed in the Bible. In the case of the many, we do not have the full mind of God, but only His thoughts in part. In the case of the One, who can ever know it fully?

The interesting questions to me are these: How much of the One Living Word of God is contained in the many words of the written word of God? Does the written word of God have all we need, or is it incomplete or unclear? The answers to these questions are what divide Catholics and Protestants and Mormons, as well as Muslims and Jewish people. They are worth considering and discussing. Don’t you think?

I hope that by properly seeing how Catholics see Scripture, the other faiths on here can discuss what is alike and what is different in our approaches.

 

[ralphinal]

Now, this part may require some discussion.

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

 

[catholic-rcia]

In my heart I feel as if the Catholic faith has given me all I need. Jesus simplified it when he spoke of the two most important commandments.

I know that the Church was established before the written Word. I know that the Words in the Scriptures are truly alive. I know that I myself take these words past the written Word, as I move out into my daily life. That they are infused in me.

Because of His Church I know who I am in regards to who Christ is. I know why He made me, us… (who would contain such love) why I fall, why I am fallen, and what I need to do to spend an eternity giving Him thanks and Praise for creating me.

Beyond that I try to do His will daily not thinking to much ahead. I don’t want to be so busy or so into myself that I miss helping others who are in need of Jesus. I try to keep my heart and mind open so I don’t miss the important things in life. I try to understand my motives in all things so I can see when and where I get off track. A question I ask myself often is “is this for me? Or for them?

I understand the importance of attending Mass…going to Confession, spending time in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel etc….

I don’t like to think about what I might get in Heaven. Because this would be living a life for a transaction. I just accept that it will be more than I can ever imagine, not pretending that I know. What I do know is I will be with God, in Him with my family as well. I know that God plays no favorites and that His love is not measured. Will I love my own family, my wife and children more than others? I don’t think so, we will love all as God loves all I believe. Can you imagine that?

I believe my family will be a lot bigger than my mind can comprehend. To much love for this mere human, but I trust God will sort it out and make it possible.
In Christ
www.utahmission.com

 

[JonNC]

Now, this part may require some discussion.
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

This gets a bit dicey, doesn’t it? While I am willing and indeed obliged to look at the whole of tradition, I am not willing to say that Tradition is the equal of scripture.

Jon

 

[Truth_Seeker123]

To my understanding, The Word is Jesus.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

…and keep reading further in the chapter. Also, the Word was made flesh (Jesus) The Word is/was perfect and Jesus is perfect.

 

[Maui71]

Bump

 

[ralphinal]

This gets a bit dicey, doesn’t it? While I am willing and indeed obliged to look at the whole of tradition, I am not willing to say that Tradition is the equal of scripture.

Jon

This is the part that I thought would need discussion.

If we are to look at this from a human point of view, and try to leave religion out of it, in what ways could tradition be at least as important and in what ways would it be less important.

Obviously, traditions may get mangled, changed, or even dropped as time goes by. Granted, the Bible could have had the same things happen to it (though there is no proof that it has). That is one reason the Bible might need priority.

On the other hand, if it is possible that the Bible was protected, by God or the Church, why could Tradition not have been as well?

IF we look at the way the first century church HAD to opperate, Churches were planted by men using Oral teachings with OT Scriptures to support it. Then, letters were written to these Churches to further teach or to correct. The Gospels would be needed as the Apostles died off or to “standardize” the basics. However, we see no mention of the writers of Scriptures telling them to ignore oral teachings or to forget that which had been passed along.

Judaism in that day had some that accepted Oral tradition and those who did not. Paul was of those who did. Jesus seemed to be as well. It would be safe to assume that all of those chosen by Jesus would have as well. Those who did not accept it denied the ressurection of the dead. Why would we say that these men would have run a church that did not have Oral tradition as a key part?

 

[JonNC]

This is the part that I thought would need discussion.

If we are to look at this from a human point of view, and try to leave religion out of it, in what ways could tradition be at least as important and in what ways would it be less important.

Obviously, traditions may get mangled, changed, or even dropped as time goes by. Granted, the Bible could have had the same things happen to it (though there is no proof that it has). That is one reason the Bible might need priority.

On the other hand, if it is possible that the Bible was protected, by God or the Church, why could Tradition not have been as well?

IF we look at the way the first century church HAD to opperate, Churches were planted by men using Oral teachings with OT Scriptures to support it. Then, letters were written to these Churches to further teach or to correct. The Gospels would be needed as the Apostles died off or to “standardize” the basics. However, we see no mention of the writers of Scriptures telling them to ignore oral teachings or to forget that which had been passed along.

Judaism in that day had some that accepted Oral tradition and those who did not. Paul was of those who did. Jesus seemed to be as well. It would be safe to assume that all of those chosen by Jesus would have as well. Those who did not accept it denied the ressurection of the dead. Why would we say that these men would have run a church that did not have Oral tradition as a key part?

I have no quarrel with Oral Tradition, or Sacred Tradition, of the early Church. And you are right about the Church in Apostolic times, but then they did have the apostles, and even their disciples. These things do play a key part, but a true sola scripturist simply says that these things must be measured by scripture.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

I have no quarrel with Oral Tradition, or Sacred Tradition, of the early Church. And you are right about the Church in Apostolic times, but then they did have the apostles, and even their disciples. These things do play a key part, but a true sola scripturist simply says that these things must be measured by scripture.

Jon

That is very true. The only problem with measuring by Scripture, as we all know, has to do with deciding who is correct. For example, both of us hold to infant baptism and the Real Presence. There are people who do not, and LOVE to throw Bible verses around to prove their point.

I think, however, that it comes down to where do we start. Catholics say “Ok, the Church as been here since day one, she has always taught this, the Bible supports that Teaching here, and that settles it.” Lutherans (and some others) say “Ok. The Bible says this. For centuries, Christians have done this. That is the way it is.” The “purely Bible” folks say “The Bible says this, the rest doesn’t matter.”

Now, the first two positions do not lead to as much confusion as the third.

Would you accept that?

 

[JonNC]

That is very true. The only problem with measuring by Scripture, as we all know, has to do with deciding who is correct. For example, both of us hold to infant baptism and the Real Presence. There are people who do not, and LOVE to throw Bible verses around to prove their point.

I think, however, that it comes down to where do we start. Catholics say “Ok, the Church as been here since day one, she has always taught this, the Bible supports that Teaching here, and that settles it.” Lutherans (and some others) say “Ok. The Bible says this. For centuries, Christians have done this. That is the way it is.” The “purely Bible” folks say “The Bible says this, the rest doesn’t matter.”

Now, the first two positions do not lead to as much confusion as the third.

Would you accept that?

Yes, I would.
Jon