What is the difference between Scripture and the Magisterium

[TarkanAttila]

Both are written down. Both are infallible. Both are divinely inspired.

But we insist that, for example, the CCC and papal encyclicals are not Scripture.

So… what makes Scripture Scripture? I am asking this because I would like some way to differentiate the two so Protestants don’t think we think the CCC and the rest are our canon of Scripture. lol

 

[bmullins]

Sacred Scripture and Tradition are closely related, as they are both the Word of God. Sacred Scripture refers specifically to the canon of the Holy Bible as approved by the church. Tradition is our interpretation of that as an oral tradition, much like the Apostolic Tradition we find written down in the New Testament. These traditions are still the Word of God, being revealed to us through His Holy Spirit. They are equal in the churches eyes because both are revelation of the Word of God.

The apostles interpreted the word of God given to them both in the Tanakh and the very words of Christ, and passed that on as an oral tradition. In many protestant circles they believe in tradition, but do not call it tradition. They believe that the Holy Spirit can indeed teach them spiritual lessons from the New and Old Testament. They take these lessons and teach them to their congregation. They just don’t call it Tradition.

The Catholic church has been doing the exact same thing for 2000 years. They have been building on the revelation by the Holy Spirit through many, many devout men and women, including the Apostles.

One final point I would use in a discussion is, and the one I use a lot when talking to the people I grew up with, is that the New Testament IS Tradition. So something can be Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Anything written AFTER the bible though is specifically Tradition. The Holy Spirit did not die with the end of Revelation, and is still guiding us today and revealing the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ to us through the church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Both are written down. Both are infallible. Both are divinely inspired.

But we insist that, for example, the CCC and papal encyclicals are not Scripture.

So… what makes Scripture Scripture? I am asking this because I would like some way to differentiate the two so Protestants don’t think we think the CCC and the rest are our canon of Scripture. lol

The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Church - it consists of people. It is not something written down. From Dei Verbum: *“But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written [Scripture] or handed on [Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [the Magisterium], whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it…”*But if you meant “Tradition” instead of Magisterium, then I think the nuance is that the Scriptures are divinely inspired in the very words themselves. Teachings of Tradition can be reworded as the Church’s understanding further develops. Or particularly in the early centuries, Tradition was unwritten and passed orally. Sometimes we can see this when we see a phrase or teaching in someone’s early writing in such a way that it is intended to be something with which the audience is already familiar. Ignatius of Antioch’s use of the term “catholic” is like that, as I recall.

 

[rom422]

Both are written down. Both are infallible. Both are divinely inspired.

But we insist that, for example, the CCC and papal encyclicals are not Scripture.

So… what makes Scripture Scripture? I am asking this because I would like some way to differentiate the two so Protestants don’t think we think the CCC and the rest are our canon of Scripture. lol

I hope I am not simplifying this too much, but I think Sacred Scripture (or the Bible) represents the revealed word of God as written by divinely inspired authors. The Magisterium is the Church itself in its function or office as Teacher. As Teacher, the Church is the institution that Christ established to explain and interpret the meaning of Sacred Scripture.

The Holy Scripture consists of the books of the Old Testament (from Genesis to 2 Maccabees), and the books of the New Testament (from Matthew to Revelation). They are the books of the Bible - no more, no less. During the early days of Christianity there were hundreds of books that people claimed to be inspired. It was the Church, again in its capacity as Teacher, which decided which of these books could be considered as part of the Bible. The books that have been selected comprise the so-called “Canon” of Holy Scripture. All the other books that have not been selected are referred to as “apocryphal books.”

The CCC and the papal encyclicals are not Scripture because they are written explanations, teachings, or interpretations made by the Church as to the content and meaning of the books of Holy Scripture.

 

[InDefense]

the magisterium needs to line up with scripture. The magisterium cannot go off on its own tangents !

 

[fred_conty]

All revealed truth from God ended with the last apostle and there will be no more.
All revealed truth is residing in Tradition, spoken, and the Bible, written, both supporting
each other, directly or indirectly.
All revealed truth is administered and interpreted by the magesterium, the Church’s
appointed teachers.

CCC 80
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and
communicate one with the other.

 

[InDefense]

All revealed truth from God ended with the last apostle and there will be no more.
All revealed truth is residing in Tradition, spoken, and the Bible, written, both supporting
each other, directly or indirectly.
All revealed truth is administered and interpreted by the magesterium, the Church’s
appointed teachers.

You make it sound as if the Catholic church has never and can never make an error in interpretation. That sounds to me like a puffed up church full of pride !

 

[bmullins]

Balony ! You make it sound as if the Catholic church has never and can never make an error in interpretation. That sounds to me like a puffed up church full of pride !

Which is exactly why the Magisterium relies on established Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide them in their work. It’s funny how many of us protestants think that we alone are able to come to a right answer, even though you can hardly find any two of us (all of which claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit) that agree on the same thing.

The bible warns us that we need 2 witnesses for something to be true. The Catholic church follows that rule. Scripture and Tradition witness to the truth that is revealed to the Magisterium. They aren’t mutually exclusive, but completely inclusive.

 

[rdscheirer]

That is why I’m upset with the new Mass. As a revert to the True Church I loved the creed- We believe- now I believe - Jesus said wherever two or three are gathered…
seems to me you need more than “I” believe. You need a family.

that

 

[Abu]

crisismagazine.com/2011/credo
Credo
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., July 15, 2011
From its earliest appearance in the Church, the “I believe” version is for liturgical use. Those present affirm their own personal belief.

Why the English translation currently in use from the 1960s changed to “we believe” is open to speculation. Obviously, if it was good enough at Nicea, it ought to be good enough in Kansas City. When the Church Fathers at Nicea and Constantinople said “we believe” or “we affirm,” however, they were speaking definitively in the name of the tradition. They affirmed authoritatively what the Church held, what is to be believed as true. At Mass, the individual parishioner is not so speaking with authority. He is articulating his personal acceptance and knowledge of what is held. He is not defining it, but he does understand it.

The Creed is a personal profession of faith. So it makes sense that each person says “I believe” because they actually believe it, as opposed to it being “we believe” like a mission statement or something. It is sort-of a mission statement (it is what we believe), but when we profess it in the Mass it’s because that is what we believe. Hence why it’s called the Profession of Faith

The 2008 Vatican-approved text for U.S. (and other English-language) liturgical use reverted to “I believe,” again making it a personal rather than communal act of faith.

The problem with the formula “we believe” is that the one who recites it may not in fact be affirming what is in the Creed. Instead of saying “I believe” as a public expression of what he holds, he means rather, “We believe” — that is, this is what this organization holds, though not necessarily what I hold myself. The unity of belief is broken.

Presence at Mass indicates that one knows what is going on, knows what it means. Public recitation of the Creed indicates the unity of belief in the one teaching or central understanding of what it is about. This is the highest form of corporate affirmation. Each knows what the other believes.

A creed is a symbol, a key that works, that puts things together with the most possible delicacy. It wants to include everything essential, but not necessarily everything that might be said. Moreover, every word of the Creed is hammered out in controversy. Every word has a counter-view behind it that would, if followed, make the Faith something else.

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., teaches political science at Georgetown University. His latest book, The Mind That Is Catholic, is published by Catholic University of America Press

 

[TarkanAttila]

The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Church - it consists of people. It is not something written down. From Dei Verbum: *“But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written [Scripture] or handed on [Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [the Magisterium], whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it…”*But if you meant “Tradition” instead of Magisterium, then I think the nuance is that the Scriptures are divinely inspired in the very words themselves. Teachings of Tradition can be reworded as the Church’s understanding further develops. Or particularly in the early centuries, Tradition was unwritten and passed orally. Sometimes we can see this when we see a phrase or teaching in someone’s early writing in such a way that it is intended to be something with which the audience is already familiar. Ignatius of Antioch’s use of the term “catholic” is like that, as I recall.

This and all the others posts? Very helpful. Yes I was referring to the Tradition of the Church.

So essentially, Scripture, which is founded on Christ and the Apostle’s words and teachings, is sort of the bedrock of Christian Tradition, and anything after that - which is not Scripture, but Tradition - is elucidation on Scripture?

This makes sense.

 

[fhansen]

Both are written down. Both are infallible. Both are divinely inspired.

But we insist that, for example, the CCC and papal encyclicals are not Scripture.

So… what makes Scripture Scripture? I am asking this because I would like some way to differentiate the two so Protestants don’t think we think the CCC and the rest are our canon of Scripture. lol

Scripture can’t be added to-and also scripture can’t speak for itself. The Magistereum is a living office that can speak for itself, explaining what both scripture means as well as of it’s own output-the Catechism, concilliar docs, etc.

 

[jmoneyideas]

Which is exactly why the Magisterium relies on established Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide them in their work. It’s funny how many of us protestants think that we alone are able to come to a right answer, even though you can hardly find any two of us (all of which claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit) that agree on the same thing.

The bible warns us that we need 2 witnesses for something to be true. The Catholic church follows that rule. Scripture and Tradition witness to the truth that is revealed to the Magisterium. They aren’t mutually exclusive, but completely inclusive.

I can’t agree with you more on this. This is one of the things that caused me to come to the Church months back. As a person in the the Church I really had to take my pastors saying as well the Gospel according to him and his opinion. It was rather unsettling for me. The fact that understanding that the Churchs Magisterium is time tested also gives it real strength. Little do most Protestants that I know realize that many things they believe and read we from the Catholic Church. They believe it all to be Luther or Calvin or who ever they seem to get there doctrine.

 

[bmonk]

That is why I’m upset with the new Mass. As a revert to the True Church I loved the creed- We believe- now I believe - Jesus said wherever two or three are gathered…
seems to me you need more than “I” believe. You need a family.

However, in this context, each person is affirming their belief in the faith of the Church, hence it’s not enough to say “We believe”, but must affirm “I believe”.

 

[bmonk]

I can’t agree with you (bmullins) more on this. This is one of the things that caused me to come to the Church months back. As a person in the the Church I really had to take my pastors saying as well the Gospel according to him and his opinion. It was rather unsettling for me. The fact that understanding that the Church’s Magisterium is time tested also gives it real strength. Little do most Protestants that I know realize that many things they believe and read we from the Catholic Church. They believe it all to be Luther or Calvin or who ever they seem to get there doctrine.

I’ve often said that I know my own judgment is falllible–I am a sinner, and I chose foolishly, even viciously at times. So, when it comes to betting not just on matters of life and death, but eternal life, life forever, whose judgment can I trust? Only God’s, and God promised the Church the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not me or other individuals.

 

[rom422]

So essentially, Scripture, which is founded on Christ and the Apostle’s words and teachings, is sort of the bedrock of Christian Tradition, and anything after that - which is not Scripture, but Tradition - is elucidation on Scripture?

This makes sense.

Actually, I am tempted to say it the other way around. NT Scripture is founded on the tradition of the early Christian Church, not the other way around. Let me explain.

The Church founded by Christ existed before any book of the New Testament (NT) was written. The Apostles preached, celebrated the Liturgy (especially the Mass), and administered the Sacraments. Their disciples and those whom they ordained continued these beliefs and practices that essentially originated from our Lord Himself. These beliefs and practices were handed down from one generation to the next by word of mouth, and they constitute what is known as “tradition.” Now, some of these beliefs and practices were committed into writing in the form of historical texts, - such as the gospels and the Acts; others in the form of epistles or letters which embody teachings and instructions to the various Christian communities. These written records became part of the Bible. Therefore, the so-called NT Scripture in a sense grew out of the tradition of the early Christian Church. The NT is only that part of tradition that was committed into writing and which became part of the Bible.

However, not all of tradition had been recorded in Scripture. Some of the beliefs and practices taught and practiced by the Apostles had been recorded in the writings of the Church Fathers; some in the hymns and prayers of the Church. But although some of these have been written, they did not necessarily become part of the Canon of Holy Scripture, but they still constitute, together with Holy Scripture, the total “deposit of faith.” Today we restrict the term “Tradition” to refer only to that part of original tradition that had not been recorded in Scripture.

I hope this helps.

 

[InDefense]

Matthew 15:
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the** tradition** of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your** tradition**?

Mark 7:
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[fhansen]

Matthew 15:
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the** tradition** of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your** tradition**?

Mark 7:
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 2 Thess 2:15

 

[rom422]

It is important not to confuse the Sacred Traditions of the Church with the “traditions of men,” which our Lord censured in Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7:1-15. The so-called “traditions of men” consist of purely external display of piety, such as the tradition observed by the Pharisees of washing their hands, without at the same time maintaining the purity of their souls. The so-called “Sacred Traditions” of the Church are entirely different. They consist of doctrinal teachings and pious practices that came from the Apostles, which were handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, and which were not recorded explicitly or completely in Holy Scripture.

Before His ascension our Lord instructed the Apostles to make the faithful observe “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). But, as St. John the Evangelist said, not every thing that Jesus did was recorded in Scripture (John 21:25). Now connect the dots: if the Apostles were to teach everything that our Lord did, but not everything was recorded in Scripture, then there must be a tradition of spoken but unwritten teachings that were handed on by the Apostles to the Church. Of these traditions St. Paul writes: “Therefore, brethren, stand firm; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:14, or 2:15 in other versions).

 

[Abu]

Christ gave us His Church and She gave us the New Testament and, through Christ’s commission, infallibly declared which writings form the Sacred Scriptures, now called the Bible. She has declared infallibly that “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum, 10].