Why does any teaching have to be in scripture?

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I think it’s obvious the Church places a HIGH value on Sacred Scripture but I still see no where where the Church states the Scripture is the ONLY source of teaching.

Right, as far as I know the CC has never stated such a thing, however, and someone correct me if I’m wrong… all teachings must at least have a Scriptural basis.

 

[exoflare]

As for me, I’m still waiting on the sola scriptura people to show me the Bible’s divinely inspired table of contents.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Nor does it preclude that possibility. What is never claimed in any Gospel is that “these are the complete teachings of Christ written so that one who wished to know the fullness of the Christian faith can deduce it from these writings”. It is nowhere to be found nor is it even hinted at…

Uhhh, nooo, that’s not what it says. It is written to Theophilus so that HE might “realize the certainty of the teachings” he received. There is no extrapolation to “we” or us being certain of anything. There is no indication that Luke intended his letter to Theophilus to be shared with anyone, let alone become a part of Sacred Scripture. Yet his letter was shared and considered Scripture. So why would it not follow that these teachings (in Luke’s gospel) are not written so that WE may know with certainty?

Furthermore, Luke doesnt mention exactly what those teachings received by Theophilus were and so we are left merely guessing how what is recorded relates to those teachings…

I suppose the reader can deduce that what follows in Luke’s letter IS the teachings Luke refers to? What other purpose would there be for starting his letter stating just that?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

As for me, I’m still waiting on the sola scriptura people to show me the Bible’s divinely inspired table of contents.

I hope you aren’t insinuating that I am a “sola scriptura person”. The title of the thread questions why any teaching has to be in scripture. The word “canon” means “rule of measure”. It seems pointless to have a rule of measure that teachings do not need to be derived from. I believe, that to teach otherwise, is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. I am merely trying to clarify what the CC’s position on the matter is so that at least the op can be better informed.

 

[exoflare]

I hope you aren’t insinuating that I am a “sola scriptura person”.

No; I don’t see why you would think I was.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I don’t see why you would think I was.

No problem - I thought you might have gotten that perception since I gave that reference to the ECF article on ss…

 

[Jesus_123]

… The Bible, like the Constitution of the USA or any other such document, is not an authority–it’s a source for authorities to cite to make decisions. The authority lies with those appointed to have it. In the case of the Bible, the authority was Jesus himself and he passed in on to the Apostles.

In all peace and charity . . . the :bible1: Bible is nothing like the man-made Constitution . . . it most certainly is an . . . absolute authority . . . it is considered . . . infallible . . . **without error **. . . by Holy Mother Church . . .

+The Catechism of the Catholic Church
CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

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 :bible1: Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error** teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred :bible1: Scriptures."72
+

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+​

 

[Sherry_G]

I hope you aren’t insinuating that I am a “sola scriptura person”. The title of the thread questions why any teaching has to be in scripture. The word “canon” means “rule of measure”. It seems pointless to have a rule of measure that teachings do not need to be derived from. I believe, that to teach otherwise, is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. I am merely trying to clarify what the CC’s position on the matter is so that at least the op can be better informed.

Hi Pilgrim:
I find it interesting that you are "trying to clarify the Catholic church teachings, considering you certainly do not understand the teachings or you would now still be a Catholic. Just sayin…

 

[kepha1]

Wasn’t the purpose of writing the Scriptures so that we would know the “all things” that were entrusted to the Apostles? Don’t even the ECFs say that the church ought not go beyond that which is contained in the Holy Scriptures?

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

How does modern man determine what are the original, apostolic teachings if they cannot be found in the writings of the Scriptures?

The same way that modern man can determine what scriptures are inspired and which ones are not. By measuring them up against Apostolic Teaching. Sacred Tradition (properly defined) and Sacred Scripture (before the New Testament canon) were measured against Apostolic Teaching for their validity.

The end of John’s gospel says that there are many other things “which Jesus did”… It does not say that there are many other doctrines which are not written.

True, but Jesus did not read from the New Testament. Furthermore, it means the world could not contain everything Jesus did if you could write them down. It does not cancel what He did because it was not written down.

For that matter, the beginning of Luke says that these things are written that we might “know the certainty of those things” which they had been instructed in.

But the beginning of Luke certainly does claim to be written for the purpose I suggested; so that we may know with certainty… I did not claim that all things Jesus ever did were contained in Scripture. I am aware of the conclusion of the gospel of John, as someone else here mentioned.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

Right, Jesus did not spell it all out, but it must still have a Scriptural basis. As far as I remember, the Catholic Church claims that each of its teachings have a Scriptural basis. I am not aware of the CC ever taking the position that teachings do not need to be in Scripture.

All Catholic doctrines can be derived from scripture, either directly, indirectly or inferred.

No, I wasn’t thinking of Revelation. I was remembering quotes from the ECFs, although it has been a while since I’ve read them.

Tertullian, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, never say “scripture alone”, and they never use scripture contrary to the Church’s understanding (in their particular historical context) of what scripture means. Rarely did some of the ECF’s have an opinion that was wrong, but they never rebelled against the final ruling of the Church. Using ECF quotes to support “Bible alone theology” will backfire every time. Why did the ECF not use the term “sola scriptura”? Because the very concept was non-existent nad neither was the phrase found in any writing anywhere until the 16th century.

 

[kepha1]

I would contend, though, that they must at least (and indeed do claim to…) have a Scriptural basis.

Would you agree then that it is a rule of measure?

It depends. If a unit of measure is marked on a rubber band, you can stretch it to fit a number of things. As a rule of measure it’s then useless. It has to be fixed without stretching it in order to measure anything. But then it cannot bind anything. The ruler has limited use. Without the Church the Bible is no longer a living book, but a reference manual for personal opinions, something any one of thousands can stretch to fit. St. Paul gives us the 4 senses of scripture in 2 Tim 3:16.

Traditionally, there are four senses of Scripture, which are outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 115-119:

1. 
   *]Literal Sense: “[T]he meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture” (Catechism, no. 116), the actual event, person, thing described in the biblical text. The literal sense gives rise to the following three “spiritual senses.”
   *]Allegorical Sense: How those things, events, or persons in the literal sense point to Christ and the Paschal Mystery.
   *]Moral Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian life in the Church.
   *]Anagogical Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian’s heavenly destiny and the last things.
   
   2 Tim 3: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, (Literal) for reproof (Allegorical), for correction, (Moral) for instruction in righteousness (Anagogical)
   Martin Luther abandoned the standard method or rule by leaning to heavily on the literal. (rubber band ruler). He was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Tim 3:16.
   

   Right, as far as I know the CC has never stated such a thing, however, and someone correct me if I’m wrong… all teachings must at least have a Scriptural basis.

   John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.
   

   Yet his letter was shared and considered Scripture. So why would it not follow that these teachings (in Luke’s gospel) are not written so that WE may know with certainty?

   I suppose the reader can deduce that what follows in Luke’s letter IS the teachings Luke refers to? What other purpose would there be for starting his letter stating just that?
   See previous post.
   
   Catechism of the Catholic Church:
   I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
   III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Hi Pilgrim:
I find it interesting that you are "trying to clarify the Catholic church teachings, considering you certainly do not understand the teachings or you would now still be a Catholic. Just sayin…

Hi Sherry,

I have not officially left the CC and joined the Mennonite one. And if I were not interested in understanding Catholic teachings, I would not be here. I am not ready to make a commitment either way.

 

[ephesians2]

As for me, I’m still waiting on the sola scriptura people to show me the Bible’s divinely inspired table of contents.

Soooooo, are you saying you don’t believe the contents in the Bible are the inspired Word of God or are you being sarcastic in saying that the Table of Contents are divinely inspired…

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Soooooo, are you saying you don’t believe the contents in the Bible are the inspired Word of God or are you being sarcastic in saying that the Table of Contents are divinely inspired…

Of course the Church believe that Scripture is inspired, and without error(Catechism of the Catholic Church), but if you believe the Bible is our only authority, then you must prove how did the Bible, which originally were letters, manuscripts, come together in one big book? How did it happen? Either you must believe that the Lord appointed the Church to determine such matter through the power of the Holy Spirit, which make you Catholic, or you must believe that God divinely appear to a certain prophet and tell him which books to be put into the Bible, which make you a Muslim.

An another question for my friend who’s a Sola Scripturist is that where is it in Scripture? This is the great Protestant irony, Sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

All Catholic doctrines can be derived from scripture, either directly, indirectly or inferred. Yes, I agree that that is the Catholic Church’s position. So we can agree, then, that (going back to the op’s question…) “any teaching” has to be in Scripture either directly, indirectly, or implicitly.

Tertullian, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, never say “scripture alone”, and they never use scripture contrary to the Church’s understanding (in their particular historical context) of what scripture means. Rarely did some of the ECF’s have an opinion that was wrong, but they never rebelled against the final ruling of the Church. Using ECF quotes to support “Bible alone theology” will backfire every time. Why did the ECF not use the term “sola scriptura”? Because the very concept was non-existent nad neither was the phrase found in any writing anywhere until the 16th century.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

It depends. If a unit of measure is marked on a rubber band, you can stretch it to fit a number of things. As a rule of measure it’s then useless. It has to be fixed without stretching it in order to measure anything. But then it cannot bind anything. The ruler has limited use. Without the Church the Bible is no longer a living book, but a reference manual for personal opinions, something any one of thousands can stretch to fit. St. Paul gives us the 4 senses of scripture in 2 Tim 3:16.

Traditionally, there are four senses of Scripture, which are outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 115-119:

1. 
   *]Literal Sense: “[T]he meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture” (Catechism, no. 116), the actual event, person, thing described in the biblical text. The literal sense gives rise to the following three “spiritual senses.”
   *]Allegorical Sense: How those things, events, or persons in the literal sense point to Christ and the Paschal Mystery.
   *]Moral Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian life in the Church.
   *]Anagogical Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian’s heavenly destiny and the last things.
   
   2 Tim 3: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, (Literal) for reproof (Allegorical), for correction, (Moral) for instruction in righteousness (Anagogical)
   Martin Luther abandoned the standard method or rule by leaning to heavily on the literal. (rubber band ruler). He was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Tim 3:16.
   
   John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.
   
   I suppose the reader can deduce that what follows in Luke’s letter IS the teachings Luke refers to? What other purpose would there be for starting his letter stating just that?

1. 
   See previous post.
   
   Catechism of the Catholic Church:
   I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
   III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
   
   I’m pressed for time right now, but I do want to address this post.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

It depends. If a unit of measure is marked on a rubber band, you can stretch it to fit a number of things. As a rule of measure it’s then useless. It has to be fixed without stretching it in order to measure anything. But then it cannot bind anything. The ruler has limited use. Without the Church the Bible is no longer a living book, but a reference manual for personal opinions, something any one of thousands can stretch to fit. St. Paul gives us the 4 senses of scripture in 2 Tim 3:16.

This is a good point, and certainly people do “stretch” the truths contained in Scripture to suit their own desires. However, no amount of clarification on the part of the church can remedy all of that stretching. Some people manage to stretch even the least “pliable” and clear teachings…

Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

Well, perhaps not directly addressed in the Bible, but certainly one can glean some insight into our modern-day issues and how they ought to be dealt with using principles derived from Scripture. I see some non-Catholic churches that would agree with most of Catholic teaching on morality drawing only from Scripture.

 

[dcdurel]

Remember that Jesus said salvation comes from believing what the apostles preached and taught (Mark 16:15-16) “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Thus, salvation, which is liberation from sin, comes from believing what is handed down in Tradition, for preaching and teaching of God’s word that the apostles learned from Jesus, is Tradition. Salvation does not come from the written Gospels.

The apostles learned the entire Gospel directly from God, (Jesus and the Holy Spirit)
The apostles did not learn a single word of the Gospel from reading scripture.
The Church teaches
This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. (CCC 75)

Notice that the Gospel handed down in Tradition is the source of ALL SAVING TRUTH AND MORAL DISCIPLINE. Not the written Gospels. No saving truth is missing from Tradition.
The Church also teaches.
Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.(CCC 78)

Thus all the Church’s doctrine has been handed down in Tradition.
NOT through scripture.

Thus there is no reason any doctrine MUST be in scripture. The Church already knows all her doctrines. Of course scripture testifies to this:

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (john 14:26)
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. (john 15:15)

Thus the Church believed and knew the entire Gospel, (the good news of salvation), which is the Catholic faith, before a single word of the NT was written.

Thus, there is no reason at all why any doctrine that God taught the apostles has to be implicit or explicit in scripture. The fact that parts of many teachings are in scripture is good and is for our benefit. But it is not necessary for any teaching to be in scripture at all.
For as the Church teaches in the Catechism:

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.(CCC 81)

Thus the Church teaches over and over that the entire Gospel, everything Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the Church, is handed down in Tradition and preserved till the end of time.

No where does the Church say anything remotely like that about Scripture.

Not only does Jesus say that salvation comes from believing the Gospel the Church teaches and preaches (handed down in Tradition), but St. Paul says the same thing:
1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which** I preached to you**, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Thus again. St. Paul did NOT write a Gospel. St. Paul says salvation comes from believing what was preached, that is, handed down in TRADITION. He did not say anywhere that salvation comes from the written Gospels.

Where in the world do these people come up with the idea that all teachings MUST be in scripture or that any teaching MUST be in scripture. Where did God say that?

 

[ephesians2]

Of course the Church believe that Scripture is inspired, and without error(Catechism of the Catholic Church), but if you believe the Bible is our only authority, then you must prove how did the Bible, which originally were letters, manuscripts, come together in one big book? How did it happen? Either you must believe that the Lord appointed the Church to determine such matter through the power of the Holy Spirit, which make you Catholic, or you must believe that God divinely appear to a certain prophet and tell him which books to be put into the Bible, which make you a Muslim.

Okeedokee…I believe that if someone’s doctrine contradicts the word of God, then that doctrine is incorrect. The Bible is definately inspired and without error, put together by men who were lead by the Holy Spirit. Like I said in a totally different area of this website, Canon means “Rule” or “standard”, so why do I need anything else to guide me in life, if I’ve got the word of God in the Bible. I’ve got the History of the world sitting on my lap. I’ve got the Law of God, I’ve got the prophecies of the old testament and the fulfillment of the new. I’ve got our Saviour’s words and the words of the apostles in a large book whenever I have a question about life, faith, morals…I know, I know, there’s always the pope…but he’s…gasp…a sinful man. I’ll just stick with the Bible. I know Roman Catholics believe in tradition and use certain verses out of the Bible to back up the claim, but I think the apostles HAD to pass down the “traditions”, the BIBLE wasn’t compiled yet…and when the Traditions of the RCC contradict the Scriptures that were called the “CANON” (rule, standard), that’s when I have an issue.

…p.s. I’m definately NOT a muslim…or a vegetarian…and I hate folding laundry.

An another question for my friend who’s a Sola Scripturist is that where is it in Scripture? This is the great Protestant irony, Sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

Umm, I guess I could say neither is the word Trinity or Purgatory, or Pope, or Bible…etc…

 

[TimothyH]

I think that’s an excellent question. The Bible tells us that Scripture is useful, it tells us also to cherish it but no where in the Bible does it tell us that all teaching is ONLY in the Scripture.

It DOES however tell us that Jesus taught His disciples MANY things but it couldn’t all be written down.

Nickybr, I don’t mean to pick on you. I’m just using your responjse as an illustration. But the fact is that 99.9999999999999% of all things Christian are in the Bible. People don’t take the time to learn how to read Scripture properly. Lectio divina, meditation and prayerfully reading scripture is hardly practiced. I know very few Catholics who actually read scripture daily, let alone on a regular basis. And saying, “Well, we hear it in Mass” isn’t good enough. People didn’t have the sports pages and TV competing with that back in the early Church. We can’t read USA Today every day and have TV in our face and then claim that 15 minutes of Scripture read to us in Mass is enough. Again, most of what people think is not in the Bible actually is and much of it plainly stated.

• Where in the Bible does it say that Mary is the Mother of all Christians and the queen of heaven? Revelation 12, plain as the nose on your face. It’s right there.
• Where is purgatory? In Matthew 12:32 Jesus speaks of forgiveness in an age to come and in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, Paul speaks about suffering loss as through fire yet being saved. Think about that… you don’t suffere loss in heaven and you can’t be saved in hell. This passage is complete nonsense in a Heaven and Hell only theology and when presented to a non-Catholic in response to a question about Purgatory, they generally go speechless.
• The Trinity? John 14 is a sublime statement about the Trinity. It’s right there. Jesus says “I am the Truth” in verse 6 and then says that the Father will give us the “Spirit of Truth” in verse 17. He then goes on to say that he and the Father are one. BAM! The Trinity. Right there in John 14.

These are just three examples and personally, I love it when people ask “Where is that in the Bible?” Too many Catholics are quite simply ignorant of Scripture (Yea, I said that) and too willing to dismiss these types of questions by saying “Not everything Christian is in the Bible”. The fact is that an incredible amount is in the Bible and much of that is very clearly stated.

Maybe it’s because I live in the deep south. Everyone carries a Bible here and you can’t walk into a coffee shop without walking into a Bible study. Here in the south, ignorance of scripture is a non-denominational Evangelical waiting to happen.

-Tim-

 

[Sherry_G]

Hi Sherry,

I have not officially left the CC and joined the Mennonite one. And if I were not interested in understanding Catholic teachings, I would not be here. I am not ready to make a commitment either way.

Dear Pilgrim
You have identified yourself as a former Catholic and as a mennonite. Perhaps you should change your self identification to indicate your actual situation? Just a suggestion. In my understanding of Mennonite faith, I see that you have a couple main divergent points: The most important distinction is that Mennonites do not believe in the true presences of the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of The Holy Eucharist. This is the source and summit of the Catholic faith. Another divergent point is that they do not believe in infant baptism. The original divergence from the Catholic faith was through a heretical Catholic priest back in the early 1500s. Your focus on Bible teachings is admirable, however you must continue to persevere in your quest for the truth, the whole truth which can only be found in the Catholic Church. The full deposit of faith is held in the one true church. I suspect your relationship with this heretical sect came about through lonliness and a longing to belong. the Mennonites are a tightly knit sect who rely on the technique known as “shunning” to keep members inside their community. In other words, if you doubt or leave, you have cut yourself off from all your friends and relationships, too. To me this seems like emotional blackmail. Not very Christlike. I applaud your efforts to continue to seek the truth and apologize if I upset you. But do consider changing your stated religion to something more appropriate? God Bless you and keep you on the path.