Why did the Church give so much weight to Scriptures

[foolishmortal]

…as to make it public revelation and nothing can be added or subtracted from it. Why was it not a mere infallible handbook? It didn’t even have all Jesus ever said. It didn’t cover cloning specifically. That was for the Magesterium to interpret. We did fine before the Bible fighting off heresies with oral Tradition. Even the Bible talks about oral Tradition. Why didn’t we make a catechism or Magesterial teaching public revelation that CAN be added to it (though nothing subtracted or Christ would have been a liar in promising us the Church that he did) since it is closer to Oral Tradition since it holds all we believe and it could never be fundamentally wrong as protected by the Holy Spirit? This way, no Protestants could have used it against us since they could not hijack it–I don’t think (I mean some traditionalists think otherwise, it seems, regarding those present at Vatican 2).

Thanks for any replies.

 

[JimG]

Public revelation is not just the bible, but everything that was revealed to the Apostles, part of which was subsequently written in the books of the bible. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Jesus left us a Church founded by the Apostles and capable of handing on and interpreting public revelation. The Church can apply the moral law to specific circumstances.

 

[puzzleannie]

foolishmortal:

… Why didn’t we make a catechism or Magesterial teaching public revelation that CAN be added to it .

who is this “we”? We did not “make public revelation” – God revealed Himself to us fully in the person of Jesus Christ, who appointed His Church to preach this revelation and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in this work and to unsure that the revealed truth is protected and transmitted. He did this through the apostles, so this revelation was closed at the death of the last apostle. Jesus chose the means for this transmission and protection, we – the Church – obey Him in this.

 

[awalt]

To me, there was a period of time when some things were written down. After that, there was no more, at least not that the Church believed was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. The decision on the books of the Bible was one of “was this a truly inspired writing?” So there is no more - there will be no “Book of John Paul” for example.

I can only assume that God didn’t want the Bible to be constantly evolving, as our understanding through the Magisterium would have produced if we continued to write things. Maybe because some level of writing was necessary to aid communication, after that it was not as necessary - critical mass existed in the Church to spread the Word.

 

[BayCityRickL]

foolishmortal:

…as to make it public revelation and nothing can be added or subtracted from it. Why was it not a mere infallible handbook? It didn’t even have all Jesus ever said. It didn’t cover cloning specifically. That was for the Magesterium to interpret. We did fine before the Bible fighting off heresies with oral Tradition. Even the Bible talks about oral Tradition. Why didn’t we make a catechism or Magesterial teaching public revelation that CAN be added to it (though nothing subtracted or Christ would have been a liar in promising us the Church that he did) since it is closer to Oral Tradition since it holds all we believe and it could never be fundamentally wrong as protected by the Holy Spirit? This way, no Protestants could have used it against us since they could not hijack it–I don’t think (I mean some traditionalists think otherwise, it seems, regarding those present at Vatican 2).

These are some interesting and tough questions.

Actually, I think it is the Muslims who would take exactly your point of view. To them, everyone in the Bible is Muslim. It is the early Christian Church and the rabbinic Judaism which is apostate, as I understand it.

Arguably, the Protestants took your point of view to some extent in rejecting precisely those claims of canonicity. It is so that they threw out the “Catholic” books of the Bible.

You came kissing-close to the truth when you said the Church took those actions precisely to fend off heresies, because that is what they did. You nailed it there, buddy, old foolishmortal you.

 

[foolishmortal]

Originally Posted by foolishmortal
…as to make it public revelation and nothing can be added or subtracted from it. Why was it not a mere infallible handbook? It didn’t even have all Jesus ever said. It didn’t cover cloning specifically. That was for the Magesterium to interpret. We did fine before the Bible fighting off heresies with oral Tradition. Even the Bible talks about oral Tradition. Why didn’t we make a catechism or Magesterial teaching public revelation that CAN be added to it (though nothing subtracted or Christ would have been a liar in promising us the Church that he did) since it is closer to Oral Tradition since it holds all we believe and it could never be fundamentally wrong as protected by the Holy Spirit? This way, no Protestants could have used it against us since they could not hijack it–I don’t think (I mean some traditionalists think otherwise, it seems, regarding those present at Vatican 2).

These are some interesting and tough questions.

Actually, I think it is the Muslims who would take exactly your point of view. To them, everyone in the Bible is Muslim. It is the early Christian Church and the rabbinic Judaism which is apostate, as I understand it.

I merely asked why we (the Church) didn't just have the Bible be infallible and not be also public revelation?  We would still have the words of Jesus.

After all, we defeated hersies without it for a while and probably could have done it longer with or without the Bible…How bad could we have screwed up if we just ran on that knowledge and the authority to declare other truths if the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to err in those matters?
The Protestants did hijack the Bible and make it out as if it came from God by magic and only they made use of it. I’m suprised they haven’t added the Gospel of Thomas by now as liberal as many denominations have become–well, that might decrease church attendance. They don’t realize that books were subtracted from their Bibles by Luther; many think the opposite was done by our Church not realizing Catholics wrote them and compiled them.

They can’t hijack the Magesterium or other Tradition. The Bible isn’t the full compedium of all Jesus wanted us to know but Protrestants use only what’s there to say, “Well, Jesus didn’t say anything about this or that” (as more liberal ones more likely say) or “Paul hijacked the Church”–which is strange if what EWTN says is true about their holding more tight to the words of St. Paul (unless they refer to the moral teachings more fundamentalist sects adhere to). Did we give the Protestants the idea of the Bible being sufficient by making it public revelation–so that it would seem to be the basics?

 

[BayCityRickL]

So many questions, so little time.

One member of the forum pointed out in another thread that the Bible is not properly speaking “infallible.” That is a different subject.

Perhaps what you mean is “inerrant” as that is the word that has so often been used.

The Church included certain books in the ‘canon’ of the Bible and so “canonized” the books or in other words declared which books had been written under the inspiration of God.

The “deposit of faith” consists of what has been revealed in Scripture and tradition.

My revised answer to the subject of the thread is, that in Verbum Dei (Vatican II document available from EWTN document library) the Church said that scripture, tradition, and magisterium are inseparably linked. And, “Why did the Church give so much weight to Scripture?” – because that’s the way it is, not the way the Church made it.

 

[foolishmortal]

It’s possible Jesus told the apostles to write the Bible. That’s not in public revelation though. The apostles and disciples wrote the books as inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the correct and best ones amongst all books floating around (because not all were written by his followers or were necessary), and canonized them in a certain order as the Bible, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. My question is, did the Holy Spirit inspire them to go that far with those scriptures or was it the Church’s decision to do so and the Holy Spirit just guided them to keep them from making mistakes?
I’m not questioning that it is part of the deposit of Faith or public revelation. I was just wondering why it was made public revelation instead of allowing it to come from the Magesterium, which Hell cannot prevail against? I guess the Catechism could be abused by some, but it would have so much explicitly Catholic stuff, the denominations would have to have done a lot of cut and pasting to make any of it suit their new world views.

This may be idle talk. I totally submit myself to the firm teachings of the Church and defend them. I don’t know if all from Vatican 2 was wise, but it is anarchy for certain groups to separate and declare what’s right and wrong–especially for groups to say only Catholics (with salvific grace) can be saved and noone else or that abortion is ok and the Church is out of date when the Church explicitly has stated otherwise throughout the centuries.
I think it may be TMI (too much information) for the Church to tell us faithful all the ways a non-Catholic could be saved, because I think that has decreased missionary zeal for souls for Christ in the Church he created. “If people are safe in ignorance, then why worry about converting them?”, it is thought by many, I believe. We’ll just encourage them to just be good Jews, pagans and Protestants.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” is still true, but the truth of it is not understood that literally–but it still could have remained without explanation. Nowadays, there are Protestants who say “There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ”, which is not technically as it sounds, without getting into extenuating circumstances and they are bringing lots of people into their churches with their false doctrines.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Public revelation contains all that we need for salvation. Let’s face it. We are challenged to live up to its standard.

See Proposition 18 from the recently concluded Synod of Bishops in Rome.

 

[Athanasiy]

…as to make it public revelation and nothing can be added or subtracted from it. Why was it not a mere infallible handbook? It didn’t even have all Jesus ever said. It didn’t cover cloning specifically. That was for the Magesterium to interpret. We did fine before the Bible fighting off heresies with oral Tradition. Even the Bible talks about oral Tradition. Why didn’t we make a catechism or Magesterial teaching public revelation that CAN be added to it (though nothing subtracted or Christ would have been a liar in promising us the Church that he did) since it is closer to Oral Tradition since it holds all we believe and it could never be fundamentally wrong as protected by the Holy Spirit? This way, no Protestants could have used it against us since they could not hijack it–I don’t think (I mean some traditionalists think otherwise, it seems, regarding those present at Vatican 2).

Thanks for any replies.

I agree with You Brother.