Vatican I Refutes Catholic View of Scriptures?

  • Thread starter Thread starter meat_spin_man
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

meat_spin_man

Guest
Hello all.

I am just wondering what this quote

“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church” (Vatican I).

Says about sola scriptura. Does this mean that Catholics believe Scripture did not need a council to define itself?
 
Your question doesn’t make sense.

The NT writings do not contain, in themselves, a list of which witings were divinely inspired, so *Sola Scriptura *doesn’t apply.

The Church holds them sacred because they were "… written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church”

It was necessary for the Catholic Church to determine the Canon of the NT, stating authoratatively which writings were divinely inspired… and which were not.
 
I think I understand the question.

The quote is simply making the point that the reason the Church accepts the books is because they were inspired by God. In other words, they weren’t just randomly chosen by people or something, but they were chosen by the Church because they were inspired.

The Church, using Her God-given gift of proclaiming the truth, still needed to list off the books so people would know what they were, but it was a list that the Church didn’t make up herself, but rather that She received from God by the Holy Spirit guiding Her in making the decisions about which books to accept.
 
That’s exactly what Catholics believe and it doesn’t support Sola Scriptura - not at all. Yes, they are Sacred and Canonical not because Church said so but because they are inspired. But you still need the Church to tell you which of the countless books are inspired. At the same time the quote doesn’t suggest that only Bible the the source of authority. It doesn’t suggest that there is no Sacred Tradition for example or the Church’s role in interpreting scripture. The quote even says: "…and were as such committed to the church.”

So no, this quote doesn’t suggest that there is such thing as Sola Scriptura.
 
meat_spin_man said:
“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church” (Vatican I).
Click to expand...
If I re-order that thought I would get:
“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because they contain revelation without error, nor simply because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church” (Vatican I).
Click to expand...
But, Christ never wrote one syllable to us.
Christ Authored His Church only, not a book.

Not all Sacred Tradition was written, the majority was spoken.
Remember the Apostles were told not to worry about what they should say when questioned by the authorities. What did they say?
Possibly only the Catholic Church recognizes *all *written and unwritten Sacred Tradition.

Sola Sacred Traditions…👍
not
Sola Sacred but-just-written Traditions…:nope:
 
Eileen_T said:
It was necessary for the Catholic Church to determine the Canon of the NT, stating authoratatively which writings were divinely inspired… and which were not.
Click to expand...
I understand that but you have to admit that is not what the infallible quote says.
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority
Click to expand...
 
meat_spin_man said:
Hello all.

I am just wondering what this quote

“These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church” (Vatican I).

Says about sola scriptura. Does this mean that Catholics believe Scripture did not need a council to define itself?
Click to expand...
Translated:

The Bible as defined by the Catholic Church. Was not composed by humans and is not approved because it does not contain error. But is approved by the Catholic Church because it’s books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with God as their author and are given by God over to the Catholic Church to protect and interpret.
 
BrianH said:
I understand that but you have to admit that is not what the infallible quote says.
Click to expand...
The quote only says that it is not the recognition of the Church which made the books sacred. But the Church has never suggested otherwise. The books were sacred scripture the moment they were written. The only question is, how were they then identified as being sacred scripture, and other writings identified as not being sacred scripture? The clear answer is that it was the Church which so identified them.
 
Hi Meatspin,

Your question may not have been well understood by some.

You have to understand what the Council was responding to. Some people thought that the Bible is free of error because it has been approved by the Church. This leads to the inane conclusion that whatever writings the Church might approve would be considered inspired by God.

This the Council denies. The Bible is inspired by God, but not because the Church approved it. It is inspired by God because God was found to have spoken to us using humans to do so.

The Church’s role has not been to approve the Bible but to RECEIVE it as inspired. It receives it as inspired because its inspiration has been transmitted to us from apostolic times. In other words, we believe in the Bible because Jesus and the apostles did.

Verbum,
 
BrianH said:
So when it says God is the author…
God the Father and not God the Son? :confused:
Interesting.
Click to expand...
God the Son [Christ] did not write anything to us - ever, in His lifetime here on earth. [am I being clear?]

God the Father, authored some of these Gospels:

1-4. The Canonical Gospels.
5. The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
6. The Gospel of Peter.
7. The Gospel according to the Egyptians
8. The Gospel of Matthias.
9. The Gospel of Philip.
10. The Gospel of Thomas.
11. The Proto-Evangelium of James.
12. The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
13.The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
14.The Gospel of Basilides.
15.The Gospel of Valentinus.
16.The Gospel of Marcion.
17.The Gospel of Eve.
18.The Gospel of Judas.
19.The writing Genna Marias.
20.The Gospel Teleioseos.

You can now thank the CC for deciding on the four you should use. 🙂
 
I’d like to take a moment to look at this problem a different way…

lets say someone cuts a very special and unique diamond…
Lets also say, that people try and duplicate it using cubic-zirconia.

They look identical… lets then say, that some careless person combined the two together. Now you have a group of stones, they all look alike to the naked eye, but only one is true.

How do you find the right one…

you get a jeweler to look at the different stones… Since this is his training, he will be able to find the one true stone, and throw out the others…

Does the fact that the Jeweler “determined” which was the true change the properties of the diamond to make it a diamond? No… all that happened was he sorted through the fake, to find the true

So to was it with scripture

There were countless uninspired documents.
but only a few inspired…

In this case, the documents are the stones, and the Catholic Church was the Jeweler…

They were inspired before the Catholic Church determined them as such, but it was the Catholic Church that let everyone know which were the true diamonds, and which were the cheap wal-mart fakes…

In Christ
 
Leatherman, I am glad that the Spirit inspired the Church to approve them. Would you really want someone like yourself being the authority on billions of people’s faith? Probably not. God let that responsibility rest in His Bride, the Church. “Whatever you bind…”
 
Pjs2ejs said:
Leatherman, I am glad that the Spirit inspired the Church to approve them. Would you really want someone like yourself being the authority on billions of people’s faith? Probably not. God let that responsibility rest in His Bride, the Church. “Whatever you bind…”
Click to expand...
Yeess…are our wires crossed?..I’ve only said the Church chose 4 Gospels out of 20. Many n-c’s knock the CC’s authority but they all accept the CC’s Authoritative choice of the 4 Gospels. The CC’s Authority is either a very real thing, and as such, it encompasses Sacred Scripture, Sacred Traditions and every other thing which concerns christianity.
or,
The alternative is that the CC never had any Authority - and therefore the n-c’s ‘religions’ would be rendered false & their Bibles would turn to dust in their hands.
 
Hi Leatherman,

We should not say that the Church “chose” four Gospels. It “received” four Gospels.

The Church is not the editor of the Scriptures but a witness to their authenticity.

Verbum
 
I great example is Peter’s Confession in Matt 16

Peter’s Confession did not “make” Christ into God, but likewise Peter did not recognize it on his own; the Confession itself was a gift from God.

Likewise with the Councils and the Scriptures. The Councils did not ‘make’ the written Word of God, but rather, through Divine Revelation, confirmed for all generations what they were the written Word of God.

So the Scriptures did not (and do not) confirm themselves, but rather were (and are) confirmed, by God, in a seperate, extra-Biblical Revelation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top