The Authority Of Scripture

[Joolye]

[quote]An example of Tradition is the list of the table of contents of the Bible. Another is the doctrine of the Trinity. [/quote]

Well then, doesn't that mean that Protestants have Tradition too?

[quote]That being said, Catholics DO say that Scripture is 'normative' for Tradition. Meaning it interprets, limits, and supports all subsequent doctrine. The magisterium stands under the authority of Scripture... but it remains true that Scripture only came to us through the magisterium![/quote]

Does everyone else agree with what Beatty has written? What is the magisterium? Can the word 'church' be inserted in the above quote instead of magisterium?

[quote]Scripture properly interpreted never contradicts Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition never contradicts the proper interpretation of Scripture.[/quote]

Good. What about issues upon which the Scriptures are silent?

[quote]the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone[/quote]

What is the living teaching office of the Church? Are regular believers to just accept what they are told? Shouldn't they test it against Scripture? Does the Catholic Church have like a prescribed commentary that describes what each verse means, so that regular believers don't have to interpret them? Can individuals not exegete texts for themselves?

New thing - If I were to get into Tradition more, I think I would lean more towards the Orthodox church, so what is wrong with the Orthodox church?

[RC_]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1119377' date='Nov 13 2006, 11:06 PM']
Well then, doesn't that mean that Protestants have Tradition too?

[/quote]

Protestants deny Tradition.

[Joolye]

But at the bare minimum we have a table of contents in the Bible, and we have doctrinal stuff.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1119401' date='Nov 13 2006, 11:21 PM']
But at the bare minimum we have a table of contents in the Bible, and we have doctrinal stuff.
[/quote]
The table of contents, what is in the Bible, was decided by the Catholic Church. The dogmas of the Trinity were defined by the Catholic Church. The Creeds come from the Church. The heresies were condemned by the Church.
There is no point in "testing" things against Scripture because the Scripture is CATHOLIC. Scriptures are a snaphot of time in the life of the Church, but no where do they claim to be authoritative. Thats why St Paul calls the church the pillar and foundation.
The Scriptures are the Word of God because the Catholic Church guarentees them as such, becuause the Church has the God-given authority to do so.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1116848' date='Nov 10 2006, 12:59 PM']
Let me throw the following into the mix:

Matthew 16:18: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

John 21:15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

The quote from Matthew makes direct reference to the Church, prior to the Crucifixion, while the latter alludes to the Church just after the Resurrection but prior to the Ascension or Pentecost.

Your thoughts?
[/quote]


[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1116854' date='Nov 10 2006, 01:08 PM']

John - this is not the institution of the Church, but rather the reconciliation of Peter after the Resurrection. Peter denied Christ 3x before the crucifixtion - this is Peter embracing Christ fully 3x in counterpoint. IMHO an incredibly deeply moving narrative on forgiveness. Even after denying Christ himself, not once, but multiple times, forgiveness and reconciliation is there... On another level of this section, Christ is indeed reasserting the primacy of Peter over his lambs/sheep - the Church. This passage ALSO proves the existence of the Church before the composition of the NT.

[/quote]


I have heard Scott Hahn speak about that verse in Matthew. This interpretation, by the way, was stumbled upon by Hahn when he was a protestant.

Jesus is descended from David. No one denies this. David, as a king, had a cabinet of ministers. all of them would take care of different duties in the kingdom, but David did have a 'prime minister' of sorts, one that he trusted more than all the rest. This minister was given the keys to the palace, he would open and close the gates at morning and night, and would speak to the people for the king on occasion. Jesus, son of David, was also a king. Jesus followed the Israeli tradition of having a 'prime minister', to whom he gave the keys of his kingdom. This was Peter.

I don't really do that interpretation credit. Someone at FUS needs to ask Dr. Hahn and then post it here .

I really believe that when Jesus asks Peter whether he loves him, the important part is when he tells him to feed his lambs. Also, in the greek, aren't two different words for 'love' used? I'm pretty sure that the first two times Jesus asks, philos is used (greek scholars, forgive me. i havent studied greek....), and the third time agape is used. however, when peter answers for the third time, he again uses philos. this would be significant, don't you think? Peter WAS repenting for his denial, but then when Jesus asked him, "Do you agape me, do you love me with everything that you are," Peter could not respond "yes, I do agape you" but instead with "Lord, you know that I philos you." Peter WAS being commanded to provide for the Lord's Church, but he was not entirely ready yet. This is why the apostles had to wait for Pentecost.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1119401' date='Nov 13 2006, 11:21 PM']
But at the bare minimum we have a table of contents in the Bible, and we have doctrinal stuff.
[/quote]Protestants have rejected the Sacred Apostolic Tradition and have substituted their own. They have rejected Tradition but have traditions. The table of contents in your Bible is a reduction of the original. The "doctrinal stuff" Protestants have varies from church to church and comes from yet another biblical interpretation rather than the teaching of the Apostles.

Tradition means the oral teaching of the Apostles and the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church in interpreting and understanding both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Christ promised that He Himself would remain with the Church [b]always [/b](Mt 28:20) and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth [b]always[/b] (Jn 14:16, 16:13 et al.).

========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[beatty07]

Sorry about the Catholic lingo! "Magisterium" comes from the Latin root "magister", which means "teacher." It's the teaching office of the Church. Could you substitute "The Church?" Well, lots of people do, but it's a little less precise. For instance, I am part of "The Church" but not part of the magisterium. Who is? Basically the magisterium is all the bishops in the world, in communion with Peter their head. That's the Pope, of course. That's a simplification of sorts, but pretty much accurate.

Are you really attracted to the Orthodox Church? As a Catholic, I would love to see you take that step because it would bring you to the Sacraments. In other words, it would be a step in the right direction. But not the final step. Christ founded a Church, with Peter at her head, and the Orthodox have separated themselves from that communion. While we acknowledge the validity of their Sacraments and the integrity of their faith, the schism is contrary to Christ's will that we be one.

To complicate things even further, you might look into the Orthodox Catholic Churches. These are Churches that maintain Eastern Orthodox liturgical rites and practices, but have rejoined communion with the Pope. They have names like "Byzantine Catholic" and "Antiochene Catholic", and they are every bit as Catholic as Roman Catholics are.

[RC_]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1119961' date='Nov 14 2006, 04:36 PM']

To complicate things even further, you might look into the Orthodox Catholic Churches. These are Churches that maintain Eastern Orthodox liturgical rites and practices, but have rejoined communion with the Pope. They have names like "Byzantine Catholic" and "Antiochene Catholic", and they are every bit as Catholic as Roman Catholics are.
[/quote]

I think the term is "Eastern Rite" Catholic Church.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1118545' date='Nov 12 2006, 08:03 PM']
So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?
[/quote]
Joolye-

They are equal.

As a poor analogy, if i write you a note and say, 'empty the garbage', and also call you and say 'order some tacos, so very tasty and good for you, for dinner', would you put one above the other? Would one have more authority than the other? No, you would empty the trash and order some tacos, so very tasty and good for you, for dinner.

I think alot of Protestants feel there are conflicts between the Scripture and Tradition, thus find the need to ask this question. Or they ask this question as a springboard to *show* the un-divinity or un-biblicalness of Tradition. Fortunately with an open mind, and some reading, q/a, and other modes of information gathering, this 'contradiction' argument is rendered null.

JMJ,

MIKolbe

[Katholikos]

Joolye,

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, as has been stated by others, are in schism from the Catholic Church. The Orthodox argue that the Catholics left [i]them[/i], but just consider the early creeds of the Church. The Apostles Creed and all subsequent creeds state: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" -- not the Holy Orthodox Church.

I considered Orthodoxy. I found that there is no "Orthodox" Church, but several separate Churches, who lack unity among them. Orthodoxy is factionalized into several ethnic jursidictions which exert a strong political influence over them. I would have had to become a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or Ukrainian Orthodox, etc.

My third reason for not becoming Orthodox was doctrinal. The Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage -- they draw the line, as I recall, at 3 divorces, 2 remarriages. I'll have to research the number. And, although they consider themselves pro-life, they allow contraception -- including chemical contraception ("the Pill"), which sometimes, perhaps often, causes early abortion.

Also, there are are different Bibles among them. Again, this illustrates the lack of unity. They need a Pope.

=================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[beatty07]

I actually met Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in February in Constantinople (don't call it Istanbul around him!). It's funny because he is very open to dialogue with the Roman Church, but most Orthodox don't really follow him. The Greeks are pretty tuned in to whatever the monks on Mt. Athos say, the Russians seem to place the Patriarchate of Moscow above Rome OR Constantinople... it's messy.

However, it doesn't bother them much because they don't conceive of unity the same way we do. Look up "autocephalous" for further understanding.

John Paul II was so passionate about healing this schism, but it will clearly take a miracle. He, of course, didn't see that as an obstacle! Maybe our generation will see substantial progress so that the Church can again "breathe with both lungs."

Until then, the Church is with Peter.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1120791' date='Nov 15 2006, 03:04 PM']
However, it doesn't bother them much because they don't conceive of unity the same way we do. Look up "autocephalous" for further understanding.[/quote]For Joolye: The 22 Orthodox Churches who have come home to Rome since the schism occurred are "autonomous" but not "autocephalous." They each have their own language, liturgy, and law. These Eastern Catholic Churches are orthodox but not Orthodox. They all profess exactly the same Faith as Latin Rite (Roman Rite) Catholics and are united with and under the Pope.

I think there are only 21 Churches in this category, because the Maronite Catholic Church never became Orthodox.

[quote]Until then, the Church is with Peter.
[/quote]I'm sure you'll agree: the Church will always be with Peter.

[Joolye]

I still don't have a full understanding of the issue between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church.

[quote]The Eastern Orthodox Churches, as has been stated by others, are in schism from the Catholic Church. The Orthodox argue that the Catholics left them, but just consider the early creeds of the Church. [/quote]

Are you saying that the Orthodox church accepts the early church Traditions, but not the later ones?

[quote]The Apostles Creed and all subsequent creeds state: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" -- not the Holy Orthodox Church. [/quote]

I thought it said "the Holy catholic church". Anglicans and some other denominations accept this creed I believe.

Now, I thought the Orthodox church does have a Pope, but it is a different pope to the Catholic pope. I guess I misunderstood something somewhere!

I think Orthodox priests can be married, is that right? Also do they ordain women?

How does the Catholic church go with contextualisation? The GNT was written in a specific time and place. The church started at a specific time and place. Our culture today is different and there is more equality between men and women. If Christ had come today, he probably would have established a church that looks quite different to the Catholic church or the early church.

Are The Didache, the writing of Ignatius of Antioch, and the writing of Augustine part of Tradition?

Please pray to the Lord for me that I may seek first the Kingdom of God and not follow after the selfish desires of my heart.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Joolye

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1121442' date='Nov 16 2006, 12:38 AM']
I still don't have a full understanding of the issue between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church.[/quote]It is basically a question of authority. The Orthodox Churches (plural) dispute the primacy of St Peter (and his successors). There are a few other issues, but this is the main one. For a fuller outline of the issues, go to [url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/catholicism-and-orthodoxy-comparison.html"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/cat...comparison.html[/url] (Dave Armstrong)

[quote]Are you saying that the Orthodox church accepts the early church Traditions, but not the later ones?[/quote]No. There are no later ones. We need to distinguish tradition (customs) and the oral teaching of the Apostles, known as Sacred Apostolic Tradition, that was not written down in what later became the Scriptures. This is the Tradition referred to by St. Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 RSV: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or mouth or by letter."

Tradition (capital T) is from the [i]Depositum Fidei[/i], the Deposit of Faith, that was left to the Church by the Apostles. There was only one Church, and the Orthodox were part of it. They also base their Faith on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. However, without the guidance of the Pope and the Councils, their doctrines are at variance with the Catholic Faith in some instances.

There is plenty of fault on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox divide. John Paul II worked very hard for the reconciliation and reunification of these two ancient Churches. Pope Benedict XVI is continuing those efforts.

Orthodox doctrine is very close to Catholic doctrine. For example, Orthodox Churches have the same seven sacraments. The Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, in some cases, celebrate the same liturgy.

The Orthodox Churches accept only the first seven ecumenical councils (up to the Second Council of Nicaea in A.D. 787). They have not had a council since then that was binding on all of them. This never made sense to me.

I'll answer your other questions separately and soon.

Peace be with you.

=================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

[b]Joolye wrote (about the Apostles Creed):[/b]

[quote]I thought it said "the Holy catholic church". Anglicans and some other denominations accept this creed I believe.[/quote]
The Apostles Creed was originally written in Greek, so I don’t know whether “Katholikos” was capitalized in the original text (if it exists) or not. Sometimes 'Catholic' is capitalized in English, sometimes not. It means “universal,” a name given to the Church, probably by the Apostles, and put into writing by Ignatius of Antioch, a student of St. John’s, in about A.D. 107.

The Orthodox call themselves "the holy, orthodox, catholic (small 'c'), Eastern Church." (Greek: [i]orthos[/i], right + [i]doksa[/i], opinion)

Yes, Anglicans and some other Christian bodies have adopted the Apostles Creed, considering themselves to be part of the “universal” church. But they don’t mean what we mean when we recite it. Examples: we mean the Catholic Church whose head is Christ and whose vicar (deputy) on earth is St. Peter and his successors. By Communion of Saints we mean all those members of the Church who are on earth, in purgatory, or in Heaven with whom we communicate and who are concerned for us and pray for us. Same words, different meaning. The creeds refer to the Church founded by Christ, not the one founded by Henry VIII and Edward VI, or Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, etc. But the use of the creed by other Christians indicates how much we have in common.

The Council of Nicaea was a meeting of the bishops of the Catholic Church, but some Protestant bodies use the Nicene Creed as well, writing ‘catholic’ with a small “c.”

For the text of the three ancient creeds, Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian, go here: [url="http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/creeds.htm"]http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/creeds.htm[/url]

I'll answer your other questions promptly.

================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

[b]Post #3 of 3 posts.

Joolye wrote:[/b]

[quote]Now, I thought the Orthodox church does have a Pope, but it is a different pope to the Catholic pope. I guess I misunderstood something somewhere![/quote]
Very early in the life of the Church, all bishops were called Pope (Greek, pappas, a child’s word for father). Gradually, over time, in the West the title came to be reserved for the Bishop of Rome. The heads of most Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches are called Patriarchs, who have authority over other bishops. I know of one Orthodox prelate who is called Pope. Can't remember his name. I'll research Orthodox popes and post my findlings. (BTW, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is also a Patriarch.)

[quote]I think Orthodox priests can be married, is that right? Also do they ordain women?[/quote]A) Yes, if a man is already married before ordination. But if a man is single when he is ordained, he stays unmarried. All Orthodox bishops must be unmarried. B) No, the Orthodox do not ordain women for the same reasons they cannot be ordained in the Catholic Church. Briefly, the Church is the Bride of Christ; the priest is "alter Christus" (another Christ; he acts "in persona Christi" -- in the person of Christ.) Women can't image Christ.

[quote]How does the Catholic church go with contextualisation? The GNT was written in a specific time and place. The church started at a specific time and place. Our culture today is different and there is more equality between men and women. If Christ had come today, he probably would have established a church that looks quite different to the Catholic church or the early church.[/quote]The early Church [i]IS[/i] the Catholic Church. Christ founded a Church and promised to be with it until the end of time. The purpose of Vatican II was to interface the Church with the modern world. The Church teaches now what it taught in the first century, but in modern language. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are fascinating reading. It's the same Church, ever ancient and ever new.

[quote]Are The Didache, the writing of Ignatius of Antioch, and the writing of Augustine part of Tradition?[/quote]"The sayings of the Holy Fathers [such as the Didache, Ignatius, Augustine, et al.] are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer. By means of the same Tradition the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and constantly actualized in the Church. Thus God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the spouse of His beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church -- and through her to the world -- leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness (cf Col 3:16)." Dei Verbum, No. 8, Vatican II

[quote] Please pray to the Lord for me that I may seek first the Kingdom of God and not follow after the selfish desires of my heart.[/quote]I promise you my prayers.

==========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Joolye]

Thanks Katholikos for your replies.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1119410' date='Nov 13 2006, 10:39 PM']
The Scriptures are the Word of God because the Catholic Church guarentees them as such, becuause the Church has the God-given authority to do so.
[/quote]

Is God God because the Catholic Church says so?

Of course not. God is God because he is.

Likewise, the Scriptures are God's Word because they are God's Word.

And back to the early comments, the OT obviously pre-dated the Church so you cannot make a sweeping statement that the Church came before the Scriptures.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1123321' date='Nov 18 2006, 04:31 PM']
Is God God because the Catholic Church says so?

Of course not. God is God because he is.

Likewise, the Scriptures are God's Word because they are God's Word.

And back to the early comments, the OT obviously pre-dated the Church so you cannot make a sweeping statement that the Church came before the Scriptures.
[/quote]
So I will make a very specific statement> The New Testament is a product of the Traditions of Catholic Church. THe Bile is a written Tradition of the Church. It exists because the Church chose what books were in it, and ratified the decision at a Church council. The Bible as a whole was put together by the Church, and its authority comes from the Church because the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1123337' date='Nov 18 2006, 04:55 PM']
So I will make a very specific statement> The New Testament is a product of the Traditions of Catholic Church. THe Bile is a written Tradition of the Church. It exists because the Church chose what books were in it, and ratified the decision at a Church council. The Bible as a whole was put together by the Church, and its authority comes from the Church because the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation.
[/quote]

The "authority" of the Bible comes from God and God alone.

Let's look at it this way.

Hypothetically, if we could prove that the Bible was NOT written by God then would it still have authority because the Church put it together?

Likewise, if we could prove that the Catholic Church is bogus, would the Bible no longer be the Word of God (even though it is still written by God).

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?