Posted on 01/01/2004 5:55:35 AM PST by HAL9000
The Apostles said to stick with the teachings that we have read and have heard. There are no more Apostles so I need to stick with what I can read. Sola Scriptura. QED!
Now answer the question... Can the Catholic Church be wrong? Yes or no.
The Catholic Church does so add to scripture. In fact, they justify it with the same verses I use to justify sola scriptura.
Needs repeating.
There was nothing written except for the OT when the Apostles said this. In fact, the NT didn't exist until the 400s or so.
Welcome back! I think I got the Catholics, and all those others, figured out!
Oh my, doesn't it hurt your pretty little head to be so publicly confused? Which is it you follow? Only the Old Testament Scripture, or Scripture plus the teachings they have heard, i.e., Apostolic Tradition?
Define "wrong."
This revolves around your understanding of "infallibility." I have found that anti-Catholics generally do not understand the concept the way it is taught.
I honestly doubt you understand the concept.
Any man or woman of good will can and does grasp the gospel context of JPII's message here.
However, I get the Zenit updates by email, and when I read this I could just envision the headlines and bigoted comments that would pour forth from the frenzied and feverish anti-Catholic minds in this country.
The mind-numbed anti-Catholics here certainly have not failed to fulfill my worst fears.
Frankly, Saddam has killed and tortured maybe 10 million innocents in the last 30 years.
We have killed and tortured 40 million in the same time, "legally," while raping third world countries of their resources and giving them population control as a consolation prize.
And the thugs on this thread just cannot understand why the Pope might not be impressed by the damnable American capitalist culture of death hypocrites.
The New Testament letters were neither all written nor had the Church yet discerned which of the myriad letters claiming to be apostolic were truly the Inspired Word of God, and which were not, at the time period to which you refer.
Your ignorance of the writing and discernment of the New Testament is astounding. Please learn more of this subject prior to attemting to teach those who understand it better.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (ESV) So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
There! You both are proven wrong. The Apostles were not talking about the Old Testament. I stand firm in the Word.
LOL! Delusions of grandeur to boot!
I said, " neither all written nor had the Church yet discerned which of the myriad letters claiming to be apostolic were truly the Inspired Word of God
In other words, Christians would not have the New Testament canon till several centuries later!
You've only proven my point that sola scriptura is not scriptural. Thank you for that.
I think the fact of the matter is that what was once the greatness of Europe, society and the greatness of Christianity is because of the catholic church.
And, we're coming for you, BlackElk and I... thou heretic!!! LOL
You're right -- it is. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify some murky beliefs.
First, let's address the myth that the Catholic church has already infallibly interpreted most or all of the scriptures. A good place to start is Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome. The Pope states that the number of passages which have not been infallibly interpreted is a "wide field."
"A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labours may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skilfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack."
A second good source is Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome. Here, Pope Pius XII expressly says that there are truths that remain undiscovered in the scriptures:
[L]let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. ...
Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our times also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information, which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis; likewise by the reiterated attempts of St. Jerome so to translate the Psalms that the literal sense, that, namely, which is expressed by the word themselves, might be clearly revealed. There are, in fine, other books or texts, which contain difficulties brought to light only in quite recent times, since a more profound knowledge of antiquity has given rise to new questions, on the basis of which the point at issue may be more appropriately examined. Quite wrongly therefore do some pretend, not rightly understanding the conditions of biblical study, that nothing remains to be added by the Catholic exegete of our time to what Christian antiquity has produced; some, on the contrary, these are times have brought to light so many things, which call for a fresh investigation and a new examination, and which stimulate not a little the practical zeal of the present-day interpreter. (emphasis added by DallasMike)
Second, let's see what scriptures have actually been infallibly interpreted. Not surprisingly, the actual number of infallibly interpreted scriptures varies from source to source, but it is definitely quite tiny. According to R.E. Brown, “Hermeneutics,” New Jerome Biblical Commentary. (Prentice-Hall, 1990), 1146-65, the definitively interpreted passages are:
John 3:5 --- sacramental baptism (Trent)
John 20:23 --- sacrament of penance (Trent)
James 5:14-15 --- Anointing of the sick (Trent)
Matthew 16:16-17 --- Primacy of Peter (Vatican I)
John 21:15-17 --- Primacy of Peter (Vatican I)
Genesis 3:15 -- - Immaculate Conception (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus and Pius XII, Munificentissimus DeusAccording to Catholic Bible Apologetics, the infallible passages are:
John 3:5 --- sacramental baptism (Trent)
Luke 22:19 --- sacrament of the Eucharist
1 Corinthians 11:24 --- sacrament of the Eucharist
John 20:22-23 --- sacrament of penance (Trent)
Romans 5:12 --- nature of sin
James 5: 14 --- sacrament of extreme unctionOther sources, like the Catholic Dictionary, also define Matthew 28:19-20 (the Great Commission) as being infallibly interpreted.
I wish that the Vatican doesn't keep an Official List of Infallibly Interpreted Scriptures, but I guess that would make far too much sense.
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.