Trusting Holy Scriptures Over The Church

[Mateo el Feo]

According to Chris (ckozlowski), we should trust the Holy Bible over the Church. Quoting him:[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1386486' date='Sep 16 2007, 08:07 AM']I personally believe, after picking up a major in biblical studies, that many who truly trust in their bibles over the church -as scripture commands- and believe in this phenomena will come to the conclusion that satan has used his great signs and wonders to crawl his way into catholic dogma over the course of history.[/quote]So my question: where does the Holy Bible make such a command which explicitly shows this relationship between Church and Scriptures?

I'll start with a pretty well known quote ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm#v15"]1 Tim 3:15[/url]):[quote]...you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, [u]the pillar and foundation of truth[/u].[/quote]

[PapaHilarious]

St. Paul says in [b]2 Thess 2:15:[/b]

[quote]So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by [u]word of mouth[/u] or by [u]letter[/u].[/quote]

Indeed, we see that tradition and Apostolic instruction had existed before the completion of the Bible proper. Decades of writing was left to be done by the time of Paul's writing to the Thessalonians.

[N/A Gone]

It is not a matter of trusting one over the other. They are two lungs that only work proper when breathed together. In that the scriptures are to be read in light of the Church's teaching and the teaching of the church is found, at least implicitely where it is applicable in scripture.

Yves Congar "The meaning of tradition" is a great book on the relationship of scripture and tradition.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1387099' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:12 AM']It is not a matter of trusting one over the other. They are two lungs that only work proper when breathed together. In that the scriptures are to be read in light of the Church's teaching and the teaching of the church is found, at least implicitely where it is applicable in scripture.

Yves Congar "The meaning of tradition" is a great book on the relationship of scripture and tradition.[/quote]

Well put.

It is impossible to appreciate Tradition without Scripture, precisely as the Bible is the most fundamental part of Catholic Tradition.

[N/A Gone]

Thank you

In the same way it is impossible to fully appreciate, or understand scripture without tradition. Not just catholic, but jewish as well. The entire christian metaphysic.

I know co-dependancy is a bad term in psychology, but perhaps here it is a positive analogy for what is happening. Scripture and tradition strengthen and hold each other in check. Without the other the one will lose its value and risk falling into heresy.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Revprodeji

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1387086' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:04 AM']According to Chris (ckozlowski), we should trust the Holy Bible over the Church. Quoting him:So my question: where does the Holy Bible make such a command which explicitly shows this relationship between Church and Scriptures?

I'll start with a pretty well known quote ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm#v15"]1 Tim 3:15[/url]):[/quote]

Three things jump out at me immediately. The first is related to RevProdeji's comment that the Scriptures and the Church are organically united. To state it plainly, the pitting of Scripture against the Church or the Church against Scripture is an artificially imposed maxim. By forgetting the organic connection between the Church and the Scriptures and how they so intimately depend on one another, the artificers of the Protestant Revolt pitted them against one another and concocted a non-existent distinction between them. This is not theology: this is politics. By doing this they were able to convince the masses that the Church was wrong.

Second, I would challenge this Protestant whose comments were the inspiration for this thread to provide for us Catholics Protestant grounds for the infallible canon of the Scriptures. I have never once heard a satisfactory answer to this question, and I am still waiting for one. Let it be known that this point was the major factor in bringing me home from Protestantism to Mother Church.

Finally, the original statement made by this Protestant assumes two of three things. The first is that the meaning of Scripture on what they call "central doctrines" is sufficiently clear to anyone reading the Bible. The second premise is one of the following two: that Catholics therefore do not read their Bibles, or that Catholics read their Bibles and sinisterly ignore what the Scriptures say.

For the first assumption, no one with any common sense could agree with such a ridiculous statement. I am sure this Protestant feels that "salvation by faith alone" is "clearly" taught in Scripture. I have heard it a thousand times. Yet what are we to make of James 2.24 which says we are [b]not[/b] saved by faith alone? Aside from what the texts really mean, one cannot say that sola fide is "clearly" taught in Scripture or that it is somehow obvious. St. Peter himself says in his second Epistle that the Scriptures are "hard to understand." This is St. Paul we are talking about!

So what this brings up is the possibility that our Protestant friend could be interpreting the Scriptures incorrectly. Will he step forward and be humble enough to admit that his interpretation could be wrong?

For the two final assumptions, they can be dismissed without discussion. Anyone who would advocate such nonsense is better treated with silence. As the Scriptures exhort us, let us not answer a fool according to his folly lest we fall into the foolishness ourselves.

God bless,

Philip

Edited September 17, 2007 by Lord Philip

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1387112' date='Sep 17 2007, 06:21 PM']Thank you

In the same way it is impossible to fully appreciate, or understand scripture without tradition. Not just catholic, but jewish as well. The entire christian metaphysic.

I know co-dependancy is a bad term in psychology, but perhaps here it is a positive analogy for what is happening. Scripture and tradition strengthen and hold each other in check. Without the other the one will lose its value and risk falling into heresy.[/quote]

I think that's a good way of putting it, with co-dependency, that is.

[Starets]

One other thing to keep in mind is that the Bible itself says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 tim 3:14 i think

[chelsea]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1387159' date='Sep 17 2007, 03:40 PM']Second, I would challenge this Protestant whose comments were the inspiration for this thread to provide for us Catholics Protestant grounds for the infallible canon of the Scriptures.[/quote]

I think he said he was Catholic

[chelsea]

Oh, nevermind. He's a "former catholic"...

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='chelsea' post='1387193' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:13 PM']I think he said he was Catholic [/quote]
No,Chris is protestant.
he's talking about the other person as new as I who's been in some of the threads on marian apparitions.[color="#FFFFFF"]You might notice that he resorts to the same tactics of a certain fundamentalist baptist,I will not say her name.[/color]
White text?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think the first post of this thread was constructive. it says that we shouldn't take scripture over the church. which could imply that there could be a contradiction. the CC position is that it's not one or the other. the fact you haven't made that clear will allow cz to take that little blirp, run with it, and ignore everything else.
plus the fact so may are posting is not good either. i am aware i'm part of the problem but maybe my input will change hereafter.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1387293' date='Sep 17 2007, 06:47 PM']i don't think the first post of this thread was constructive. it says that we shouldn't take scripture over the church. which could imply that there could be a contradiction. the CC position is that it's not one or the other. the fact you haven't made that clear will allow cz to take that little blirp, run with it, and ignore everything else.
plus the fact so may are posting is not good either. i am aware i'm part of the problem but maybe my input will change hereafter.[/quote]If you were talking about my post (i.e. the first post), I simply meant to open the debate with Chris's position, so that he could clarify for us/me. I didn't mean to force an answer with the Bible verse I provided. I just wanted to stimulate things a little.

Of course, until he responds, it's all just a big lovefest. Group hug.

[jeffpugh]

Just to get this one on top for our new friend.

[ckozlowski]

hey guys!

I feel like i've stirred this inter-religious debate room so much.

I want to thank Mateo for posting a new topic for me. I guarantee he's the most Knowledgeable person in here, so i'm guessing he's going to be the only one who's going to answer this in a way that i might even consider coming back to the catholic faith.

We've already spoken so much about this, i really don't want this to be protestant vs catholic, lets forget who we are, and realize that we're after the same thing, truth.

So with that said, my question is..(only for those who have a good understanding of biblical interpretation) i just want to know why it's not reasonable to believe that "Rock" stands for Christ instead of peter.

who's got this one?

[ckozlowski]

why can't i be in the love fest?

[Starets]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387470' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:35 PM']So with that said, my question is..(only for those who have a good understanding of biblical interpretation) i just want to know why it's not reasonable to believe that "Rock" stands for Christ instead of peter.[/quote]

Because I see no good textual or historical reason to believe that the "Rock" strands for Christ in this instance, and plenty of textual and historical reason to believe St. Peter was the "Rock" in this instance. My reasons for this stance can be found in the following article, which I did not write:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp[/url]

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387470' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:35 PM']I want to thank Mateo for posting a new topic for me. I guarantee he's the most Knowledgeable person in here,

So with that said, my question is..(only for those who have a good understanding of biblical interpretation) i just want to know why it's not reasonable to believe that "Rock" stands for Christ instead of peter.

who's got this one?[/quote]



Never spoke to you before, but Bout time Mateo gets some props. Thats a good first impression for me.

about your Question, couple quick points and we can go from there in whatever way you want.

-I personally have never heard the theory that the Rock stands for Christ. I have heard that it could stand for the confession, but never that the rock itself stood for Christ.

-If you have a doubt with an interpretation of scripture it helps to know what the early fathers thought of it. Universally, when the rock is mentioned it is as peter. This is what the universal patristic church taught. Which means that is what they were taught by the apostles. I have plenty of quotations, and citings of this if you want. 50 before the year 700ad from both east and west.

-involving the actual exegetical points of the text I recommend you read

[url="http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/08/authority-of-peter-in-mt-16.html"]http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/08/a...r-in-mt-16.html[/url]

-The gospel text shows Christ directing his response to Peter
"blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona"
"And I tell you, you are peter"
"I will give you"
"whatever you"

As far as cross-referencing scripture what issue are you concerned with? The overall primacy of Peter in scripture? Which shows the gospel authors to be focusing on Peter.

By the tone of your question I wonder if I am being baited. So I will accept the bait. What do you got for those of us with a good knowledge of Biblical interpretation? Im game.

[Deo Iuvente]

Simple.
It presents a false dichotomy.
there's no reason that christ being the chief cornerstone excludes Peter being the rock upon which the church is built.
The question is'nt as much "Is Christ the rock",Because catholics teach that.The problem lies in saying that Peter isn't the rock on which the church is built.There's nothing in the verse in question that supports the idea of someone else being that rock,and there's nothing anywhere else that says so.
the problem,as I said before is assuming that scripture must only have a singular meaning,Thus presenting a false dichotomy when you come to verses such as 1 Cor. 3:11/Eph 2:20; Which present both Christ [b]and [/b] the apostles as the foundation,and Christ as the capstone,And 1 Pet. 2:25/Acts 20:28,Which present both christ and the apostles as sheperds.
And I can understand from this,how you may have gotten the idea that Catholics don't beleive that Christ is the rock,You may have assumed that with singular interpretation,we beleive only peter to be the rock.

[Socrates]

(Copied from Fatima thread)

Okay, let's look at the immmediate contect of Matthew 16:
[b]"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [/b](Matt. 16:18)
Jesus Christ directly addresses Simon, and gives him a new name, Peter, which translates directly as "Rock."
Obviously, the rock on which Christ built His Church is Peter, as He is addressing Peter, and gave him the new name "Rock."
When God gives someone a new name in the Bible, it always indicates Him giving that person an important new mission (Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter).
After calling Simon-Peter "Rock," why would Christ suddenly change the topic mid-sentence to refer to something entirely different? That just would not make any sense, in any language.

The "Petra/Petros" argument is bogus, as first of all, Christ would have originally spoken Aramaic to Peter, not Greek. There is only one word for "rock" in Aramaic - Kepha. The name "Petros" was given when translated into Greek, because "petra" is a feminine noun in Greek, and was changed to the masculine "Petros" to be a man's name. The word means the same thing. [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp"](Good article on this here.)[/url]

This statement of Christ is followed immediately by the following solemn declaration to Peter: [b]"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." [/b](Matt. 16:19)
Christ gives Peter the authority to bind and loose on Heaven on Earth. It is nonsensical to say that Christ is not referring to Peter here.
Christ gives Simon the name Peter (Rock) and gives him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The meaning is clear here. Christ is obviously talking about Peter, no way around it.

The first thing to do when looking at scripture is to look at the immediate context, not to pull out other passages in the Bible not directly related to claim the word refers to something other than what it obviously refers to in the sentence. A word has no meaning out of context.

Christ also called Himself the Good Shepherd. Yet he says to Peter: "Feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17)
Again Christ entrusts Peter, to whom He has given the Keys of the Kingdom, to carry on His work on earth as a shepherd of souls.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Socrates