What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Benadam]

michaelp:

Scripture is not the only means of revelation, but it is the primary and only infallible means.

Jesus said about scripture; " they testify to me"
The resurrected Christ said to Saul in reference to persecuted christians; " Why do you persecute me?"
The scriptures aren’t the primary expression of the Word of God on earth.

Respect and fear tradition but always be ready to reform–*Semper Reform *

Only dissenters who remain obedient to authority bear the fruit of true reform that unites rather than divides*

 

[michaelp]

I don’t think I ever said that - I only said that declaring definively the concept of “day” in Gen was irrelevent to one’s salvation.

It is just the justification of the system that declares dogma that makes no sense. If this system was justified, I guess the RCC could declare whatever it wants without any explaination of why it does what it does. But the system is unjustified to me, therefore, Marian dogma is unjustified.

Well, for one, if Mary can offer intercessary prayers that are powerful similar to the prayers of a “righteous man”, then that would be important. It all, of course, depends on your theology. Mary makes no sense at all in your theology.

This is a post facto justification for the dogma. There is no reason for anyone to say that knowledge of the assumption of Mary is necessary for salvation. Therefore, there is no reason for the declaration of this dogma more than for the interpretation of the word “day” in Genesis.

then again, you said that using your system of belief that on a scale of 1-10 you almost never achieve an 8 - that’s not very inspirational.

This system is relative to the amount of true certianty that anyone can have. I am only a 9 that the sun will rise tomorrow because I cannot be infallibly sure that some outside circumstance will not change it. Hightly unlikely, but it still keeps me from being a 10. In acutality, there are not many things that people can be a 10 on. Anything above an 8, there must be virtually no room for doubt. Faith is a factor that makes up for the lack, but the lack is cause by the lack of absolute evidences. There are not many things that are absolute in such a way except for mathmatics and analytical statements.

I don’t know is the most honest answer I have. At least they don’t change their mind once dogma is declared. Changing dogma over time is a sure sign of one who is lost.

But you can just act as if they are “advancements” and “developments” rather than legitimate changes, Right? .

You keep harping on this and I honestly have no idea why it would change anything. I said this much in the post and asked you to provide with some ideas of WHY you think it is important EXACTLY. You, for the third time, have failed to do that. Please tell me why it is important to know the specific duration of time in Genesis.

I say the same thing as I have before. I don’t think that it is that important. I agree with you. But I don’t see how it is any less important than the assumption of Mary.

If I am not mistaken, when the Magisterium speaks it is guided by the Holy Spirit. What you are essentially asking, then, is "Why does the Holy Spirit operated in the manner it does (in this capacity)?

No, I am not asking this since this is not part of my presuppositions as it is yours.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Jesus said about scripture; " they

testify to me"
The resurrected Christ said to Saul in reference to persecuted christians; " Why do you persecute me?"
The scriptures aren’t the primary expression of the Word of God on earth.

I am missing something. I don’t understand.*

Only dissenters who remain obedient to authority bear the fruit of true reform that unites rather than divides

And we would disagree as to who these dissenters are, right?*

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

I am missing something. I don’t understand.

**In reference to the primary expression of the Word of God, we have more than a mere testimony on earth. When Christ refered to the christians being persecuted as ‘Me’ He was pointing out the primary expression of the Word of God on earth. That expression is a living expression and from there the meaning of the testimony can be understood. **

And we would disagree as to who these dissenters are, right?

Partly yes. Both obedient and disobedient dissenters are revealed when compared. Dissent in obedience allows the conscience of the Church as a whole to undergo correction as a single organism.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

You asked why the Church waited to make a dogmatic declaration concerning the Assumption of Mary. The same question could be asked about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. We could also ask this question concerning the timing of many other long held doctrines concerning the Trinity, salvation, the two natures(human and divine) residing in the one person of Jesus, and many other doctrines as well.

I think you’ve raised an important and interesting question that finds its answer in Newmann’s statement about knowing history and then joining the Catholic Church. Theological truths which were universally accepted would occassionally come under attack. When this happened the Church would make clearer definitions that arose because of necessity. The same holds true of the teaching on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Even the reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, accepted the Marion doctrines. When later protestants mounted challenges the Church took a firm stand and made its declarations. They were not needed earlier.

The word “day” in Genesis might get attention if a particular line of theological thought could be posed that would be a threat to the faithful and their understandings of God as creator of all things. Currently that is not the case and there is no apparent need for the Church to change its position of latitude.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

You also posed the question about the “importance” of Marion doctrines and the necessity of dogmatic declarations. This is a great question because it points out something deep within Catholic teaching that is not as well thought out or understood outside of the Church. The Marion doctrines are essential not so much because of what they say about Mary, but because of what they say about Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

In Luke 1:46-50 Mary says, "“My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.” Everything about Mary speaks volumes about God. Everything about Mary shows the power and glory of God. Everything about Mary says something about God’s beautiful plan of salvation.

If the Church did not defend its teachings on Mary then the power, glory, and mercy of God reflected therein would be diminished. The Church will not allow this to happen.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

A point in this thread that has been presented by the Catholic participants many times, is the importance of the Church. We believe that scripture is best understood, appreciated, and followed, when it is read, studied, and preached within the context and environment of the Church. Scriptural understanding finds its fulfillment and depth within its natural setting which is the Church.

It is within the Church setting that we receive more from scripture. An analogy that might help point this out is that of a symphony. If we can read the sheet music we can have an appreciation of the music upon which a great symphony is based, but our appreciation is greatly enhanced by attending a symphony where where we can actually hear it being played by musicians. While the analogy is imperfect it gives a clue as to how we are to know, understand and appreciate scripture. Scripture is best taught, known, understood, and appreciated when it is in its natural environment. That environment and home is the Church where all of the traditions are held and protected and where scripture has been the most deeply explored. Inside the Church environment the believer gets deeper scriptural understandings and appreciation by the liturgy, the prayers, the breaking of the bread(i.e. the Eucharist), fasting, confession, marriage, and the many aspects of worship. This appreciation also comes by way of teaching authority and the steadfast and constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages. This appreciation comes through being “led unto all truth.” This appreciation comes by way of a Church that will not teach erroneous doctrines. This appreciation comes by way of the Holy Spirit, and it is this same Spirit which protects the Church from falling into doctrinal error.

While we may not have proven to your standards how all of this must be true, based on explicit an statement of scripture, we do believe that the case is strong for our position. You said that your conclusion of “scripture alone,” rests on the following: "There is nothing else that is called theonustos (“God breathed). It is an arguement from priority and deduction.” Actually we can make the same argument by extension. Our God breathed scriptures say the following about the Church:

Matt 16:18-19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock **I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. **
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Eph 3:10
0 so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.

Col 1:24
for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

1Tim 3:15
the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Matt 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Matt 5:14
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.”

Scripture tells us about the Church. The scripture is God breathed. What scripture says about the Church must be true and there must be logical deductions that we can make from these God breathed statements. We believe that we have agrued from “priority and deduction.” Not only that, we believe that the historical evidence is overwhelming in supporting our positions.

A natural outcome of the establishment of the Church and the granting of the keys is a hierarchical authority and a visible unity. History shows that this was the case for at least one thousand years. The many divisions and sects/denominations that we see today are not a natural outcome of scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is, in and of itself, inerrant,. Scripture is inspired and is “profitable”[2 Tim 3:16], but it is not, in and of itself, “sufficient.” Jesus established His Church with a place and purpose along with scripture for our salvation. The elements of authority and infallibility are argued using scripture by priority and deduction, as well as by history and necessity.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

It may be true that we cannot provide a highly specific and definitive statement from scripture that details authority and infallibility, but we believe that the evidence for them is, nevertheless, persuasive. It is our belief that there exists a consistency from Jewish history, scripture, the establishment of the Church, the issuing of the keys, apostolic tradition, and Church history that give overwhelming credence to the claims of authority and infallibility made by the Catholic Church. Christ’s body which is the Church must by necessity of its very nature, make these claims. The bride of Christ knows Christ Jesus and cannot betray Him in the teaching of faith and morals. If this is not so, then everything is up for grabs by means of interpretation.

There is no logical or workable alternative to this model to be found anywhere else in Christianity. There is no working or even theoretical alternative that can bind and loose Christians. Nothing conforms to scripture’s definition and requirements of the Church as does the historical Catholic Church. We must either believe that there is a mechanism for authoritative and authentic teaching from scripture and tradition, or we must accept the idea that conflicting and contradictory doctrines are not only to be tolerated, but that they must also represent the norm. This latter idea has no support from scripture and has no historical precedent prior to the reformation. History is a clear teacher as to where we find unity of teaching and doctrine and how it is provided, and history is a clear teacher as to why and how there exists so much division, and why the divisions continue to increase.

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

It is just the justification of the system that declares dogma that makes no sense. If this system was justified, I guess the RCC could declare whatever it wants without any explaination of why it does what it does. But the system is unjustified to me, therefore, Marian dogma is unjustified.

It makes NO sense? It makes sense to have a teaching authority appointed and guided by the holy Spirit so that it remains true. I can understand you feeling it is not “justified”, but it seems reasonably logical. Especially when you consider the inherent ambiguities of Scripture.

michaelp:

This is a post facto justification for the dogma. There is no reason for anyone to say that knowledge of the assumption of Mary is necessary for salvation. Therefore, there is no reason for the declaration of this dogma more than for the interpretation of the word “day” in Genesis.

Michael - what are you doing? Mary is the mother of Jesus. She’s in every single Gospel. She is in heaven right now. She can pray to God in a manner we can only imagine. The truth about Mary reveals the splendor of the Father and Son and can bring people to faith in Christ. It happened to over 9 million people in several years in Mexico. That is important. How can you compare her to the word “day”?

michaelp:
No, I am not asking this since this is not part of my presuppositions as it is yours.

Michael
What I was trying to do was to explain to you what your question means to a Catholic, not that you were intentionally actually asking that. So you can’t ask me “Why does the Magisterium operate in such an illogical way?” without me thinking, “Hmmm, lets see, the Magisterium is guided by the holy Spirit. Why does the holy Spirit guide the Magisterium the way it does?” And then have me answer it from that perspective. That’s all I was trying to do - I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth…

Phil

 

[dcdurel]

You wrote: " Scripture is not the only means of revelation, but it is the primary and only infallible means."
Someone else responded:
“Only”? Where do you find that in Scripture?

Then you wrote:

There is nothing else that is called theonustos ("God breathed). It is an arguement from priority and deduction.
Michael

That doesn’t make sense. Why would something that is God breathed be prior to what God taught? What Jesus taught to His apostles is not called “God breathed”, yet it is the word of God, thus equal to scripture. The apostles learned that word, thus, they learned the word of God, and so this is equal to scripture. Then they taught this word to the believers who joined the Church and handed down this word to their successors. Thus, the teachings they handed down, is the word of God, thus equal to scripture.
And since Jesus said those who didn’t believe this word the leaders of the Church taught would be condemned, we see that those who taught this word have priority over those who read the word.
Thus we have authority, which comes from God, these authorities teach the word of God, Sacred Tradition and they both wrote the word of God and determined which writings were the written word of God, that is scripture.
Thus we need all three. Without the authority from God which He gave to His Church, we cannot know what is scripture, and what is apostolic Tradition. And without that authority to interpret it, we cannot know the meaning of scripture. That is obvious since you didn’t and maybe still don’t believe that we receive the grace of salvation when we were baptized, yet all the early Christians in the first centuries believe this, because they claimed to have learned it from the apostles.
What good is scripture alone, if one can never have any idea which of his interpretations is correct?

And how from deduction can you say scripture is the only infallible means of revelation, when it never claims to be, and nobody in the New Testament first learned the Gospel by reading scripture, and Jesus never said we are to learn the Gospel by reading scripture. In other words, you are making your reasoning superior to God’s teaching.
To sum it up, Jesus taught that we are to learn the Gospel by listening to what His Church taught and preached, (Sacred Tradition).
Martin Luther taught we are to learn the Gospel by reading
scripture (salvation history) and interpreting it according to our own reasoning.
It seems your foundation is based on what Martin Luther taught instead of what Jesus taught. Am I correct?

 

[Benadam]

Since the dawn of time there has always been a People of God that with their own lives make the Word of God visible on earth. Right behind those lives making the Word of God visible has laways been an oral tradition. That changed with Moses when by the providence of God a written testimony began to develope as well. By the time that the Word of God Himself became visible their was a well developed testimony of Him and His people and that testimony continued afterwards untill the death of the Apostles when again by the providence of God the Word of God as made visible by His People was deemed sufficient along with the written testimony they already had. That has never changed. The People of God continue to make the word of God visible and the written testimony and the tradition that follows are still with it.

How could anyone claim that the order God established since the beginning, that he came in the flesh and confirmed, was at an arbitrary moment in time meant to end?

Since Adam their have been human lives making visible the Mystery of God and that primary expression has always been followed with a tradition.

Where are those People of God today? Where is the tradition that has always followed and record that scroll of Life?

According to some it doesn’t exist anymore and all there is now is the written testimony and the same claim it testifies to them. Even though their is no tradition that follows and records their lives. Even though they don’t make visible the Word of God on earth.

I think it an irresponsible position to claim that the written testimony of the People of God is the only rule of faith and that the People of God themselves are no longer relevant. This is what happened 500 years ago when another people branched off and claimed that the People of God were no longer His people and that the tradition that has followed them since the dawn of time is no longer necessary. And to top it off the written testimony of their life is not theirs but belongs to someone else.

 

[Emmaus]

Benadam,

Beautiful post. I am saving that one.

 

[Benadam]

Emmaus:

Benadam,

Beautiful post. I am saving that one.

Emmaus,

thank you for the encouragement, I’m glad you liked it and it’s good to hear.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

I am missing something. I don’t understand.

And we would disagree as to who these dissenters are, right?

We would disagree on who the dissenters are.St.Francis of Assisi reformed the Church from within, he didn’t change what Jesus set up and cause division

 

[dcdurel]

michaelp:

Thanks for your contribution. I will have to think about it.

Let me ask you a question. Has the Church taken a position on evolution or the new or young earth theory yet?

The Church has not taken a position on the new or young earth theory yet.
The first teaching on evolution was by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. He writes:

 5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

1. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
2. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
3. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"

This is Church teaching and cannot be changed.

 

[dcdurel]

The present Pope adds some more teachings on evolution:

“5. The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet”; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

1. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans."

Notice he says, “Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them…”
All Evolutionary theories spring from philiosphies. That is why that last paragraph has so much on philosophy. Bad philosophies give rise to bad theories.

From what I understand, the only evolution the Church could accept is a God-directed evolution. From what I understand, 40% of scientists believe in a God directed evolution already.

Also, if you notice, the Church interprets Genesis to fit the teaching on original sin, which was handed down through apostolic Tradition. That is because Church teachings came from the apostles first in apostolic Tradition. Scripture came later and teachings are only implicit, thus it must be interpreted to fit God’s word handed down in apostolic Tradition. Thus, when Protestants can give different interpretations of scripture, the Church cannot. She always, always must interpret scripture in accord with the teachings that have been handed down from the apostles, because the apostles received these teachings from
God, thus they are the word of God. That is the secret to underestanding how the Church interprets scripture.