In this little diagram Blogger and I are arguing about, we talk about what proceeded from what. The Church wrote the New Testament and explained the Old. She did not find the scripture in the glove compartment and say "I got the instructions, let's fire this thing up".
Yes, I've been following your discussion with Blogger with interest. In your diagram you have the truth itself and scripture flowing not directly from God, but through the lens of the Church. By definition, that means that the Church doesn't "have to" following what the Bible says, HOWEVER, the Bible does "have to" follow what the Church says. In your diagram, the Church is dependent on God and the truth and scripture are dependent on the Church. That means the Church trumps scripture because the Church, and not God directly, defines what scripture means. In our model God defines what scripture means and the Church is dependent on that.
When you say that "the Church" wrote the NT, you imply that the Magisterium as a body wrote it (perhaps similarly to the way the Constitution was drafted). We both know that's not the way it happened. Individuals wrote the manuscripts, and each was individually inspired by the Spirit, infallibly. The writings were not an act of "the Church". The Church accepted those individual writings later, much later in the whole. That moves both the scriptures and truth ahead of the Church in the diagram.
yes, I've been following your discussion with Blogger with interest. In your diagram you have the truth itself and scripture flowing not directly from God, but through the lens of the Church. By definition, that means that the Church doesn't "have to" following what the Bible says, HOWEVER, the Bible does "have to" follow what the Church says. In your diagram, the Church is dependent on God and the truth and scripture are dependent on the Church. That means the Church trumps scripture because the Church, and not God directly, defines what scripture means. In our model God defines what scripture means and the Church is dependent on that.
When you say that "the Church" wrote the NT, you imply that the Magisterium as a body wrote it (perhaps similarly to the way the Constitution was drafted). We both know that's not the way it happened. Individuals wrote the manuscripts, and each was individually inspired by the Spirit, infallibly. The writings were not an act of "the Church". The Church accepted those individual writings later, much later in the whole. That moves both the scriptures and truth ahead of the Church in the diagram.
= = =
GOOD POINTS, as usual. Thx
The idea that the magicsterical could define and trump Scrripture on its good old boy's club consensus whim has always been more than a little outrageous to me.
In that particular sense, yes, the Church is indispensable tot he interpretation of the Holy Scripture, yes. However, you would construct a false dichotomy if you were to suggest that the Church may subvert the scripture.
Individuals wrote the manuscripts, and each was individually inspired by the Spirit, infallibly. The writings were not an act of "the Church".
It does not follow. The Magisterium is the body of the bishops of the Church, so when they write individually, they act as the Chruch as a whole, provided the Church given their writing a canonical approval.