Posted on 08/20/2009 9:14:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
Pope Leo used “dictate” “utter” and “inspire” pretty much interchangeably in his encyclical.
That textual details are different does not mean that the accounts as written are not each inerrant.
***Pope Leo used “dictate” “utter” and “inspire” pretty much interchangeably in his encyclical.
That textual details are different does not mean that the accounts as written are not each inerrant.***
As written when and by whom? By the author of Hebrews? By the author of 2 Peter? Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Who wrote Revelation? We don’t know; but the point is that the Church decided that these books are Scripture. But the meaning of them is held to the Church. I cannot restate it enough: the JWs have constructed a complete fantasy theology based upon Scripture (and largely the Gospels) and have the quotes to prove it.
The Trinitarian doctrine and the Divinity of Jesus can be disproven from the right Scriptural verses. Just ask the Mormons; Jesus was a man and now is Jehovah. The Holy Spirit is basically a cell phone or wire service.
Martin Luther in his hubris claimed that Scripture was so understandable that every milkmaid or child of nine that could read could interpret Scripture. At the end of his life, he realized that every person who could read could create his own religion.
There are some that believe that Luther recanted, repented and died a Catholic because of the results of his heresies. Only the Good Lord knows; but from what I’ve read about his life, it seems possible.
Luther didn’t recant. Nor did he claim it was a mistake to trust scripture. Evil men can twist anything, but scripture remains God-breathed...and understandable WITHOUT interpretation by a church.
BTW - where IS the official church interpretation of verses? I cited some comments from the NAB, and was told they were wrong...seems they didn’t support using 1 Cor 3 to support Purgatory.
If you can’t trust the Catholic footnotes in a Catholic Bible, then where IS the Catholic’s Church’s infallible interpretation kept?
***Luther didn’t recant.***
How do you know?
***Nor did he claim it was a mistake to trust scripture. ***
What he actually said was that any milkmaid or child of nine that could read could create his or her own religion.
***Evil men can twist anything***
So can well intentioned men.
***but scripture remains God-breathed***
What does this mean?
***and understandable WITHOUT interpretation by a church.***
Well, Scripture itself says that it is not understandable without interpretation by the Church.
***BTW - where IS the official church interpretation of verses? ***
The Catechism.
***I cited some comments from the NAB, and was told they were wrong...seems they didn’t support using 1 Cor 3 to support Purgatory.***
I have no knowledge of this. Could you please enlighten me?
***If you can’t trust the Catholic footnotes in a Catholic Bible, then where IS the Catholic’s Church’s infallible interpretation kept?***
Could you please fill me in on this encounter?
“Well, Scripture itself says that it is not understandable without interpretation by the Church.”
Really? Guess I missed that part.
The Catechism is a collection of beliefs, not interpretation of scripture.
The Purgatory discussion took place perhaps 3 weeks ago. I pointed out the footnote on 1 Cor 3 says, “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians3.htm#foot8
Also, in the interest of honesty, I pointed out the footnote doesn’t PRECLUDE a purgatorical interpretation, but it does make it clear that wasn’t the author’s primary objective.
I was told both the NAB & its footnotes were terrible, and to use the Catechism instead.
In the end, I believe there is simply an irreconcilable disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on the role of scripture. I find the Catholic view - that the church defines beliefs and uses the Bible and other sources to support them - deeply sad. Of course, Catholics regret my insistence on interpreting scripture.
Although, oddly enough, Augustine wrote several books on interpreting scripture:
“...After detailing with much care and minuteness the various qualities of an orator, he recommends the authors of the Holy Scriptures as the best models of eloquence, far excelling all others in the combination of eloquence with wisdom. He points out that perspicuity is the most essential quality of style, and ought to be cultivated with especial care by the teacher, as it is the main requisite for instruction, although other qualities are required for delighting and persuading the hearer. All these gifts are to be sought in earnest prayer from God, though we are not to forget to be zealous and diligent in study...that they all have the same end in view, to bring home the truth to the hearer, so that he may understand it, hear it with gladness, and practice it in his life.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.iii.html
“39. When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.”
***“Well, Scripture itself says that it is not understandable without interpretation by the Church.”
Really? Guess I missed that part.***
I will quote from the front page of Scripture Catholic.com:
Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord’s body. But Catholics do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics also believe that God’s Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.
What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus’ flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
***The Catechism is a collection of beliefs, not interpretation of scripture.***
The Catechism is an indepth explanation of the Faith, as oppposed to the summaries of the Creeds. The Catechism has very good explanations of Scripture as it goes through the entire explanation.
***The Purgatory discussion took place perhaps 3 weeks ago. I pointed out the footnote on 1 Cor 3 says, “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”***
The best explanation in the Canon of Scripture is in 2 Maccabees; you must remember that the Church began long before any NT writings existed. Doctrines and the Faith were rigourously taught by Jesus during His Mission. But the Apostles, after the death, Resurrection, Ascension and then Pentecost had only the Septuagint and the oral Tradition. No NT Scripture. As the writings began (hundreds of book over the next 2 centuries), they reflected the biases of the authors and eventually the Church was forced to have a Canon of Scripture.
Scripture arose partially in tandem with, but usually following the development of the Church. Many writings were considered Scripture up until that final Council and then were set aside. Much doctrine arose from those writings that are not now considered Scripture. Yet the Church kept them and built upon them. Many sayings of Jesus were not contained within current Scripture, yet these are as valid as those contained in the Bible.
The Church has the authority and the responsibility to formulate doctrine and to promulgate the Faith. Not Luther’s any milkmaid in personal interpretation. We must remember that it is the Church that is the foundation and pillar of Truth, and not even Scripture itself.
“”Although, oddly enough, Augustine wrote several books on interpreting scripture””
Yes,and Blessed Augustine adhered to authority of the Church regarding scripture,dear brother. Nice try though!
From Saint Augustine...
“If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema.”- Augustine “Contra litteras Petiliana”, (Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6
“Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case.” .... “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”-Augustine (”De unitate ecclesiae”, [on the Unity of the Church]3)
“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Augustine-Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.
Sorry,I misread what you wrote
How do you know the author was inspired and how do you know "we" know the original intent of that his choice?
There are two versions of Mark 1:1. One says that this is the story about "Jesus the Anointed One (Christ)," and the other one says "Jesus the Anointed One, Son of God." There are two versions of +Luke's Gospel. One is 10% longer. +John's Gospel is out of sequence, and no copies exist that are in sequence, etc.
Care to tell me which one is the original? No one knows! Yet you claim "we" know. Perhaps you'd care to explain just how do "we" know and where does this gnosis come from?
That is the only logical meaning of "God-breathed", or "inspired", as Pope Leo shows.
No, Alex. The only meaning of being "inspired" or "breathed" is how it is used throughout the rest of the Bible. God's Spirit (power) is likened to the wind (powerful breath) that moves people and things, or brings them to life. When +John hears a voice that tells him to write what he saw, he is moved or inspired by that experience to write what he saw. There is nothing in any of the usage of God's Spirit in the Bible that even hints at your conclusion.
It is possible for several textually different narratives to exist and for them all to be inerrant in that sense
They can convey the same message even in different words, the way one can report on an event in two different narratives. What remains enigmatic are quoted conversations when none of the authors was there to see or hear what transpired.
In fact [sic], the multiplicity of views on the events and teachings during the ministry of Christ on earth is in itself a divinely [sic] dictated feature of the scriptures.
A fact ? Divinely dictated at that? Such matter-of-fact claims are pure blather, Alex. If they are facts, I say prove them! Faith doesn't require proof, but facts do.
Your post is remarkable for its errors and exagerations. I don’t have time now, but will address some over the next day or two. Here is one:
““I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Augustine-Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.”
The question Augustine is answering is a heretical sect that has written ‘new scripture’ - “the Fundamental Epistle”.
Augustine rejects it, and Manichæus’s ‘Apostolic Authority’.
He wrote:
“Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, 131 in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened.
The epistle begins thus:—”Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.” Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of.
Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason?
It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel.”
The entire passage and book can be read here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.viii.vi.html
It is easy, 1500 years later, to read into a sentence meaning the writer didn’t intend. Did Augustine mean ‘Because the Council of the Catholic Church under the Authority of the Pope declared it, I believe the Gospel’? Writing in 397AD, does he write, “Interestingly enough, just 4 years ago, the African Synod of Hippo discussed this very issue...” Does he say “The Council of Carthage has/will deal with this issue”? Does his writing have ANYTHING to do with top down hierarchical authority, or the Pope?
No. He references the Catholic Church once, and uses “Catholics” the next 5 times.
“If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you...”
The Catholics - used at that time of ALL christians, not those under the authority of Rome - taught Augustine the Gospel. And what Gospel? The one they all accepted. The Councils in Africa were not directed top-down by ‘The Vicar of Christ’, nor did they make any decision apart from what their believing members already thought. They largely RATIFIED current practice.
“First, the well-known distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena must be understood. Seven of the New Testament books (the antilegomena) were seriously doubted by some in the early church. The four gospels, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Peter and 1 John were, however, never seriously questioned in the early church. These books are known as the homologoumena. As soon as the post-apostolic church becomes visible in the early second century, it emerges treating these books as possessing authority.
Second, the Christian must take into account the difficulties of communication in the early church. It is not surprising that some books took a period of time to gain acceptance in sections of the early church which were a long ways from those to hwome they were first written. Westcott argues this point persuasively:
The common meeting-point of Christians was destroyed by the fall of Jerusalem, and from that time national Churches grew up around their separate centres, enjoying in a great measure the freedom of individual development, and exhibiting, often in exaggerated forms, peculiar tendencies of doctrine or ritual. As a natural consequence [result—SW], the circulation of some books of the New Testament for a while depended, more or less, on their supposed connexion with specific forms of Christianity; and the range of other books was limited either by their original destination [the place they were first written to—SW] or by nature of their contents. (22)
Third, it must be remembered that what is under discussion is the universal acceptance of the New Testament. There is evidence that all of the books of the New Testament were regarded as possessing authority in some sections of the church almost from the beginning.
Fourth, it must be remembered that early Christians surrounded by a living oral tradition created by the original, apostolic preachers of the gospel did not feel the necessity for a written canon that we now feel. The need for a written canon may seem obvious to us, but it did not seem obvious to them at first. We must remember also that many early Christians lived in the hope of Christ’s imminent return. Thus, they did not see or sense the necessity of a New Testament canon immediately.”
Of books rejected, there were only 2 serious contenders - The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, and those two were only explicitly recognized (that I know of - I’m way our of my area of expertise, which is actually electronic warfare!) in one list around 400AD. Numerous church fathers rejected them both.
In rejecting Manichæus’s Epistle, Augustine asks what the African Councils asked - was it written by a recognized Apostle (no), and was it accepted as scripture - gospel - by the Catholics (Christians) of the time (no). Therefor he rejected its ‘authority’.
However, when you take one sentence out of context and apply modern ideas backwards into it, you get the idea that Augustine only believed the Gospel because the Pope told him to - which is ridiculous.
I apologize for the first sentence in post 110...I was actually thinking about another subject when I typed it, and didn’t get it erased. It wasn’t meant for you and I’m sorry I didn’t catch it before posting. My error entirely.
“Yes,and Blessed Augustine adhered to authority of the Church regarding scripture,dear brother. Nice try though!”
That is correct regarding canon - although Augustine used a ‘bottom-up’ approach to the question, as did the African Councils.
However, he didn’t write books on how to interpret scripture in hopes folks would not do so.
And if the Catholic Church has the authoritative interpretation of scripture, it would be nice if they would share it. I suggest publishing it...perhaps as, “The Vatican’s Authorized Interpretation of Scripture”. I’m sure it would be a best-seller, and all other Bible Commentaries - including those written by various church fathers - would no longer be needed.
But there is no authoritative church tradition handed down from the Apostles - a rather gnostic sounding idea anyways. When the Pope needs to announce a feast day for Mary, he just cherry-picks various catholic writers and calls it tradition, while ignoring those same fathers who disagree.
I think some of your historical concepts are somewhat confused, base don your writing.
Ummm, that can't be right. The writings of SS Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and by Clement I of Alexandria (the earliest writers) suggest otherwise. It was not until Irenaeus, end of 2nd century, that not only are the books generally accepted save for a few (and not necessarily in the same version), but St. Irenaeus for the first time assigns authorship to the Gospels by name. Until that time, no one quoted the Gospels by name of the author, because the manuscripts were anonynymous.
Anyway, St. Irenaeus used oral tradition as the authority rather than the written, and he was way past the original apostolic authors.
Augustine was in communion with the Catholic Church-including the Pope. He was not in communion self interpretation of Scripture outside of Church teaching.
From Blessed Augustine
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
***But there is no authoritative church tradition handed down from the Apostles - a rather gnostic sounding idea anyways. ***
The Protestant view of the Church normally does not understand the consensus patrem. In this type of operation, there are many opinions that may be wide ranging, but there are those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.
It is only those such as Origen that go far and do not return or repent of heresies that are excommunicated for their hubris.
“The Protestant view of the Church normally does not understand the consensus patrem. In this type of operation, there are many opinions that may be wide ranging, but there are those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”
Sounds a lot like, “Whatever the Pope says, I’ll believe.” After all, there can be many opinions, but the Pope gets to pick “...those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”
I think this Protestant understands what it is, but I can’t understand believing it has any validity. It explains why the Catholic Church shuns Scripture as the rule of faith, since ANY rule of faith would limit the Pope’s power.
Either you misunderstood what I wrote, or I wrote poorly. I agree that there was no universal papal authority in 400AD. That was an innovation the Bishop of Rome pushed in contradiction to the scripture. I also agree that at that time, there was no concept of a Christian who wasn’t Catholic. I also agree that there wasn’t total unanimity on the canon of the NT, although I believe there was a pretty strong consensus from the beginning that the gospels and the letters of Paul were inspired by God. But even the (Roman) Catholic Church allowed debate on canon until Trent.
My point was that someone who accepts current Catholic teaching - which evolves, as has been pointed out - sees meaning in Augustine (and scripture!) that wasn’t meant by the writer.
And avoiding that error is always a challenge for a modern reader. I’m sure I fail at it often myself.
***Sounds a lot like, “Whatever the Pope says, I’ll believe.” After all, there can be many opinions, but the Pope gets to pick “...those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”***
I see where you are coming from. However; the Pope is not by himself the consensus patrem and never really has been. The doctrine is normally agreed upon by the bishops. The Pope is, really, just another bishop.
***I think this Protestant understands what it is, but I can’t understand believing it has any validity. It explains why the Catholic Church shuns Scripture as the rule of faith, since ANY rule of faith would limit the Pope’s power.***
It’s not about the Pope’s power. And I would contend that the Catholic Church venerates Scripture above and beyond that of any Protestant organization or disorganization. We brought it; we validated it; we blessed it; we continue to bring it to the world. We also bring the authority of Jesus Christ; unfortunately there are many who refuse it. Assuming unmerited authority usually brings its own reward.
Of course, being Latin, Blessed Augustine was jurisdictionally subject to the Bishop of Rome (that is—the Patriarch of the West).
When Blessed Augustine says he is moved by the authority of the Catholic Church to believe thesciptures, he is referring to the entire Church (the Greek and Latin side).
However, being Latin, he was jurisdictionally subject to the Bishop of Rome (that is—the Patriarch of the West), so, he might just as well be referring to the Roman Catholic Church.
But He is definitely not referring to the "community of believers," as some Protestants imply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.