Can a faithful Catholic affirm this?

[Sojourner]

This is related to the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45727"]thread I started yesterday[/url] about the Wheaton College professor who was fired after becoming Catholic. Here's a quote from the original Wall Street Journal article:

[quote]Wheaton's 12-point statement doesn't explicitly exclude Catholics. But its emphasis on Scripture as the "supreme and final authority" and its aligning of Wheaton with "evangelical Christianity" were unmistakably Protestant, Mr. Litfin wrote to Mr. Hochschild in late 2003. Because Catholics regard the Bible and the pope as equally authoritative, a Catholic "cannot faithfully affirm" the Wheaton statement, he continued.

Mr. Hochschild disagreed. The Bible, he wrote, is indeed the supreme authority for Catholics, who turn to the Church hierarchy only as Protestants consult their ministers. While acknowledging the college's right to exclude Catholics -- and knowing his position was endangered -- he replied that as a matter of principle, "I see no reason why I should be dismissed from the College upon joining the Roman Catholic Church."[/quote]

Here's a segment from [url="http://www.wheaton.edu/welcome/mission.html#faith"]Wheaton's statement of faith[/url]:
[quote][T]he Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.[/quote]

Now, one of the commentators on Amy Wellborn's blog [url="http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/01/evangelicals_an.html"]Open Book[/url] (posting as Thomas Aquinas) says that Dei Verbum does not preclude a Catholic from affirming that statement.

Here's part of his conclusion:
[quote]The latter claims the authority to judge INTERPRETATIONS of Sacred Scripture and the Word of God. In conjunction with the former, I don't see that any claim is made that the authority of the Church is in fact a higher authority than the Word of God itself, which Word of God is constitued by a unity of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.[/quote]

[url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/01/the_catholic_ch.html#trackback"]Mirror of Justice poster Thomas Berg [/url]posts the relevant bits from Dei Verbum on MOJ, for those interested; he concludes that a Catholic could, depending on the interpretations one ascribes both to the Wheaton statements and Dei Verbum, affirm the Wheaton statement.

Any thoughts on this?

[Didacus]

[quote][T]he Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.[/quote]

Gonig out on a limb here, but I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

The only difference with a Catholic, as you aluded in your statement, is that we look to the pope for authoritive interpretation of the bible, who he in turn takes his own inpiration from the bible itself .

The only uncertainty I can see is the traditional side of the Catholic church. But in theory the traditional and the bible side of Catholicism does not contradict each other right? And the Wheaton statement does not say that "the bible is the ONLY authority" it only states that it is the "supreme and final authority".

[Era Might]

[quote]The Bible, he wrote, is indeed the supreme authority for Catholics, who turn to the Church hierarchy only as Protestants consult their ministers. [/quote]

It's not quite the same dynamic. Protestants do not place infallible faith in the decisions of their Pastors, whereas Catholics do.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 02:59 PM']It's not quite the same dynamic. Protestants do not place infallible faith in the decisions of their Pastors, whereas Catholics do.
[right][snapback]851739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, that was the WSJ paraphrase; I don't know what he actually wrote.

However, I wouldn't say I put infallible faith in all the decisions of my pastors.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Jan 10 2006, 03:04 PM']Yeah, that was the WSJ paraphrase; I don't know what he actually wrote.

However, I wouldn't say I put infallible faith in all the decisions of my pastors.
[right][snapback]851746[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, I meant the official decisions of the Bishops or the Bishop of Rome. Protestants do not generally believe any body can decide something for all Christians.

[rkwright]

I would say we also look to the Church for more than just interpretation; but for actually bringing us to Jesus through the sacraments, passing on the teachings of the Apostles, even putting the Bible itself together for us.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:59 PM']It's not quite the same dynamic. Protestants do not place infallible faith in the decisions of their Pastors, whereas Catholics do.
[right][snapback]851739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But in turn, won't the Catholic pastor's decisions be based on scripture and on apostolic tradition? The core of the Catholic beliefs remains those two things, scriptures and the apostolic tradition, regardless of what is said by the pope since the pope would never come to a contradiciton of those two things.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 10 2006, 03:07 PM']But in turn, won't the Catholic pastor's decisions be based on scripture and on apostolic tradition?    The core of the Catholic beliefs remains those two things, scriptures and the apostolic tradition, regardless of what is said by the pope since the pope would never come to a contradiciton of those two things.
[right][snapback]851754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course it will. But there still remains an essential difference, because Scripture is a book. Protestants acknowledge it as the "ultimate authority" not just in the sense that it is what all Christian faith must be based on, but that it stands alone, apart from any official "interpreter". Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are all indispensable "stool legs" in Catholic theology.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Era Might

[Didacus]

[quote]Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are all indispensable "stool legs" in Catholic [/quote]

Agreed.

However, my point, or better yet, my question;

Can it be said that the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium take their source from the Sacred Scriptures?

If one can show this to be true for the Sacred Tradition, then consequently it must be true for the Magisterium since the Magisterium bases itself on the other two (to my limited understanding of course).

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Jan 10 2006, 02:37 PM']Any thoughts on this?
[right][snapback]851712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
They make it sound like Scripture and the teachings of the Church are somehow opposed, and this is not so. The pope is only one aspect of Sacred Tradition, and while he is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, he never teaches anything that would go against what the Church has taught throughout the ages. Tradition even goes back to the times of the Old Testament, when the Israelites recieved the written Torah and the Oral Torah. Sacred Tradition is so much bigger than the pope. There are past popes, ecumenical councils, teachings of the Saints, Doctors of the Church, etc.

To say that the Scriptures are the supreme authority would deny the Tradition that they came out of.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 10 2006, 03:15 PM']Agreed.

However, my point, or better yet, my question;

Can it be said that the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium take their source from the Sacred Scriptures?

If one can show this to be true for the Sacred Tradition, then consequently it must be true for the Magisterium since the Magisterium bases itself on the other two (to my limited understanding of course).
[right][snapback]851763[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sacred Tradition precedes Sacred Scripture. If anything, it could be said that Sacred Scripture takes its source from Sacred Tradition, because the Scriptures are just Sacred Tradition in written form.

Scripture is our ultimate authority (along with Sacred Tradition), in matters of doctrine. But in the context of an Evangelical statement of faith, Scripture is understood as an ultimate authority that stands alone. For Catholics, Scripture and Tradition are the "data", but the Magisterium is the "ultimate authority" when it comes to computing that data. Evangelicals do not share this point of faith in a Magisterium.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Era Might

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 01:20 PM']Sacred Tradition precedes Sacred Scripture. If anything, it could be said that Sacred Scripture takes its source from Sacred Tradition, because the Scriptures are just Sacred Tradition in written form.
[/quote]

Good point.

Is one is simply a different form of the other, then can one not say that both are in a certain manner equivalent?


[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 01:20 PM']Scripture is our ultimate authority (along with Sacred Tradition), in matters of doctrine. But in the context of an Evangelical statement of faith, Scripture is understood as an ultimate authority that stands alone. For Catholics, Scripture and Tradition are the "data", but the Magisterium is the "ultimate authority" when it comes to computing that data. Evangelicals do not share this point of faith in a Magisterium.
[right][snapback]851772[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The difference is simply in the 'computation of data'.

Regardless of your religion, you need to adhere to someone or something that will authoritively compute the data for you?!?! Wether it be the Pope, the Bishop of Canteburry or Charles Manson; unless you go off and start your own religion - tried it, did't work (couldn't get tax breaks, imagine that!).

I guess this is one of the points where I misunderstand how the portestants understand us, or I misunderstand the protestants themselves.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 10 2006, 03:36 PM']Good point.

Is one is simply a different form of the other, then can one not say that both are in a certain manner equivalent?
The difference is simply in the 'computation of data'.

Regardless of your religion, you need to adhere to someone or something that will authoritively compute the data for you?!?!  Wether it be the Pope, the Bishop of Canteburry or Charles Manson; unless you go off and start your own religion - tried it, did't work (couldn't get tax breaks, imagine that!). 

I guess this is one of the points where I misunderstand how the portestants understand us, or I misunderstand the protestants themselves.
[right][snapback]851795[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally authoritative. They are both part of the same Deposit of Faith delivered by Christ through his Apostles.

It's true that everyone has a "Pope", so to speak, but it doesn't have to be an outside authority. It can be yourself. There are Protestant confessions of faith, but these aren't the same as dogmatic formulations in Catholicism.. They are, rather, more like common points of agreement. Ultimately, each individual must appeal to the Scriptures, and decide its meaning for themselves. This is the sense in which Scripture is believed to be the "ultimate authority". There is no ecclesiastical body guided by the Holy Spirit which communicates Divine Revelation infallibly.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Era Might

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 01:58 PM']Yes, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally authoritative. They are both part of the same Deposit of Faith delivered by Christ through his Apostles.
[snip]

[right][snapback]851831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thus one does not contradict Sacred Tradition by saying Sacred Scripture is the ultimate authority?

Ouch... now my head hurts and I'm confused...

Edited January 10, 2006 by Didacus

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 10 2006, 04:08 PM']Thus one does not contradict Sacred Tradition by saying Sacred Scripture is the ultimate authority?

Ouch... now my head hurts and I'm confused...
[right][snapback]851847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Scripture is not the ultimate authority, in the sense that you have to answer to Scripture alone. As Catholics, we believe we must answer to the Magisterium. The Magisterium must answer to Scripture and Tradition.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote][T]he Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.[/quote]

The quote, while clearly intended to be interpreted according to evangelical protestant theology, can be read in a manner that is in accordance with our Catholic Faith.

Scripture is the Word of God, and Christ is the word made flesh. In no uncertain terms we rightly say that Christ is the [i]living[/i] Scripture. The Scripture is not authoritative because it is scripture, it is authoritative because it is Christ written out for us to read. Christ is also the Church, for the Church is His Mystical Body, and He is the head of the Church.

Now, as catholics, in faithfully affirming the above quote about the authority and power of Scripture, we understand ourselves to be affirming the authority and power of Christ, who manifests himself to us in the Scriptures. This same Christ also manifests himself to us in the Church - in both the living magisterium and holy tradition. Thus we see that Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are indeed One, much like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One.

As catholics, the authority of Tradition is not for us different or seperate from the authority of Scripture or the Magisterium. It is the same authority, and that is the one, ultimate authority: Christ.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Sojourner]

Another (part of a) post from Open Book:

[quote] ... And the Wheaton Statement of Faith only says of Holy Scriptures that “they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.” It does not follow from that claim that they say everything, saying, for example, those elements of the Word of God involved in Sacred Tradition. Consequently, they may be of supreme and final authority in all they say, without in any way being in conflict with what they do not say, those elements that are also part of the Word of God, namely Sacred Tradition. In fact, Dei Verbum makes it pretty clear that we cannot hold that there is a conflict between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. From which it appears to follow that Sacred Scripture is indeed the “supreme and final authority in all [it] says,” since Sacred Tradition cannot contradict it, and the teaching authority of the Church is “not above it…but serves it.”[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 04:41 PM']The quote, while clearly intended to be interpreted according to evangelical protestant theology, can be read in a manner that is in accordance with our Catholic Faith.
[right][snapback]851873[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Perhaps, but I don't think you can take a statement of faith apart from the intent of its author. If, for example, a pagan emperor told you to sign a statement that read "Jesus is not God", you would refuse to sign it; not because it can't be read in a Catholic way (biblically, the title of "God" usually refers to the person of God the Father), but because the intent would be to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 02:46 PM']Perhaps, but I don't think you can take a statement of faith apart from the intent of its author. If, for example, a pagan emperor told you to sign a statement that read "Jesus is not God", you would refuse to sign it; not because it can't be read in a Catholic way (biblically, the title of "God" usually refers to the person of God the Father), but because the intent would be to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
[right][snapback]851880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In answering the question "do you agree with this statement?" I think you most certainly can take statement apart from the intent of the authors. In fact, it is precisely the seperation between intent and statement that allows for the catholic doctrine of mental reservation.

If I have Jews hiding in the storm cellar, and Nazis ask me "are there any Jews in this house?" I will say "no" even though it is clearly their intent for the question to ask whether or not I am hiding Jews anywhere. The Church would say that was the right thing to do.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 04:35 PM']In answering the question "do you agree with this statement?" I think you most certainly can take statement apart from the intent of the authors. In fact, it is precisely the seperation between intent and statement that allows for the catholic doctrine of mental reservation.

If I have Jews hiding in the storm cellar, and Nazis ask me "are there any Jews in this house?" I will say "no" even though it is clearly their intent for the question to ask whether or not I am hiding Jews anywhere. The Church would say that was the right thing to do.
[/quote]
Mental reservation? I think that this was discussed [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44726"]here on this thread. [/url].