Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
“If Scripture is the authority by which the RCC has its authority, then it cannot have more authority than the document (Or person) which gave it that authority.”
The reality is that while Scripture (along with Tradition and history) is invoked in support of RC claims to authority, that is an interpretation of such, in which others would differ, including the EOs on some aspects, and what makes the RC interpretation authoritative is her claim to assured infallibility.
The RC argues that she gave us the Bible and thus she uniquely has the authority to tell us what is means, in this case that it means she has the authority.
However, according to that principal the would-be followers of the itinerant preacher in Galilee should have submitted to the authority who sat in the seat of Moses, over the nation that had the promises of the Lord’s presence, guidance and perpetuation.
We instead, as said before, hold that writings were supernaturally established as Divine (due to its Heavenly qualities and attestation), and that Truth was given and preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium - and God can raise up men to correct those who presume as much - while Truth claims are established upon conformity with Scripture in text and in power, and thus the church began and is preserved as the body of Christ, He in them and they in Him, though in much need of perfecting.
I combined both responses so that I can address them together because you are both saying the same thing. It is the Roman Catholic Church which USES Holy Scripture to "prove" its authority. Holy Scripture, which even the Catholic Church attests to, IS the Word of God and "all Scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit". It is GOD-breathed truth revealed to men and recorded in a format that is both accessible as well as transcendent. The Catholic Church claims that "it" wrote Scripture and in the next breath proceeds to quote the verses that it says it has derived its authority. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.", the magesterium quotes and then proceeds to interpret from that that only the Roman Catholic Church still has a person sitting on Peter's seat, they're still here ERGO it alone is the One, True Church.
Without the Bible, the Catholic Church would have nothing but its own word to lay claim to being the church Christ established. So this is why I question every time a Catholic makes such statements as, "Scripture derives its authority from the Church". Holy Scripture is the authority by which ALL truth claims must be measured and this was confirmed by ALL the early church fathers and leaders of the first and second century church as well as Scripture ITSELF. Jesus confirmed HIS authority by appealing to Scripture. Without Scripture, the Catholic Church has only its own statements to go on and its own selective history to back up its claims. That is why these few verses are even cited in the first place.
What I think is fundamentally wrong in stating the Church is the authority over Scripture is that they can - and they have - decide whatever they choose is or is not the doctrine of the Christian faith. It no longer is a prerequisite that the doctrines be based on Scriptural grounds and, when that happens, the Church sets itself ABOVE the very Word of God. Now, that may be perfectly acceptable to some people because they have become convinced that their church is always right about everything it says and nothing it proclaims or even does is subject to error. But, by the same token, there are others to whom the Scriptures have preeminence and the Word of God, IT IS WRITTEN, is the authority by which all truth claims are measured. And that makes the church SUBJECT to it and not the other way around.
You think the Pharisees weren’t pointing to Scripture when they accused the disciples of “harvesting on the Sabbath?”
Just about every slander leveled at Christ was based in a Scripture reference.
Referring to Scripture means nothing. Rightly dividing it, does.
I’ve seen Protestants here spewing Scripture like they have Tourette’s to sanctify their vanity, but most of the time the citation is so polluted with subtexts and pretexts on how the passage is “supposed” to be understood that they can no longer tell the difference between the word of God and their own preferences.
What language do you have to be told that is incorrect before you "get it?"
Sort of like the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary? Or the concept that Mary is the “Queen of heaven”.
Then find me the Old Testament Scripture that let Simeon know he would see the Messiah before he tasted death.
Utterly unrelated, but I understand why you would try to get onto another subject...or are you unfamiliar with 2 Tim 2:15?
You are right that we are saying essentially the same thing, and I appreciate that from a Protestant perspective you are right, but you actually have it backwards. The Church and Tradition preceded Scripture by over 300 years. The measure of Canon was the selection of writings that agreed with the Church's existing dogmas and doctrines. That is why it is so perplexing to witness Protestants insist that Scripture contradicts the Church. It was only the authority of the Church that gave credibility to the Canon of Scripture. Without the Church the Bible would be no more credible and no more widely accepted than the Encyclopedia of Lost and Rejected Scriptures.
Peace be with you.
just......
wow......
The brainwashing is complete.
I guess Jesus didn't know what He was doing when He stated *It is written* as the final authority BEFORE the Catholic church came into existence. Eh?
And 578
papertyger: You have it backward. The Church does not derive it’s authority from Scripture; Scripture derives it’s authority from the Church.
pt: You have it backward. The Church does not derive it's authority from Scripture; Scripture derives it's authority from the Church.
Just when you think you've heard it all.
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Mark 2:28.
I hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but nothing coming out of you that confutes from Scripture.
I know, and evidently that is my fault - I misread what papertyger was getting at, and assumed that he was comparing physical flesh and blood via transubstantiation to a somehow physical 'born again' concept. I am sorry for that confusion.
There is a literal second birth, but *literal* does not by default mean *physical*.
When we are saved, born again, if you will, we are transferred to the kingdom of the Son He loves and are seated with Him in the heavenly realms NOW. I am not there NOW in the physical as I am still here on earth, but spiritually I am seated there with Him as a matter of fact.
You and I are in perfect agreement in this regard - what is happening in the spirit or to the spirit is certainly real, and is of much greater importance than what happens in the physical realm.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
829 "But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. and so they turn their eyes to Mary":306 in her, the Church is already the "all-holy."
But back to the search for appeal to Scripture for its authority. It IS in there, bits and pieces of verses quoted just enough to show that the CCC does appeal to Scripture to give it its authority.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
Then on what basis do you deny "transubstantiation?"
A proper discussion of transubstantiation requires that we have a thorough understanding of the difference between a substance and a property. There are physical properties of the Eucharist that are not germane to the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence.
Good Luck!
LolWHUT?
We have to remember that many of those we encounter in these threads literally worship Scripture. They do not understand the difference between the author and the authority. It is expected that encounters with the truth about Scripture will cause them to initially recoil and then lash out at the messenger. Pray that they gain the gifts of knowledge, wisdom and understanding.
Peace be with you.
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.