Posted on 02/05/2006 12:36:59 PM PST by Gamecock
Games?
Right you are.
Fine with me. You're always right, anyway.
You are absolutely correct. The Bible has primacy of position, as it ALONE is inerrant and the Church is its servant.
Otherwise, you have no written "constitution" of the church, and abuses such as existed with indulgences can flourish.
Exactly. by the way, xzins, in a different post, you said that the Catholic Church is not exactly the same as that established by Christ (paraphrasing). I would say that this might be similar to comparing a mustard seed to a mustard tree...
Also, I point out that the Vatican 2 Fathers do not say that the Roman Catholic Church "IS" the Church of Christ...
“This Church, set up and organized in this world as a society, SUBSISTS (rather than IS) in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him, although outside its structure many elements of sanctification and truth are to be found which, as proper gifts to the Church of Christ, impel toward catholic unity (LG 8)”
This makes the idea of partial communion and the use of “subsists in” more obvious. The FULLNESS of the faith as given by Christ exists (subsists) only within the Roman Catholic Church, but partially exists outside the visible Roman Catholic Church. This has been the teachings of the Church all the way back to even Justin the Martyr
Sorry if I changed the subject regarding the Canon - but just clarifying to some others who believe that one must be a Roman Catholic to be "in" the Church. (including some Catholics)
Regards
Do you not see tradition and scripture as equal? Do you not see a proclamation on a matter of faith by the Pope equal to scripture?
It's historical fact that God gave it to you through the undivided Catholic church of the first millennium. If you don't like it, take it up with Martin Luther. He agrees with me.
God used the church to protect and preserve the scripture. He used men, inspired by the Holy Spirit to select the canon. That says nothing about the validity of the teachings of that church today. So to claim to have the authority for correct interpretation because of God using the early church to compile the NT Canon is faulty at its core. That was my point
There are art experts in the Smithsonian who can recognize a true Rembrandt from a fake. This doesn't make the expert a master painter, either equal to or the sole interpreter of Rembrandt. Recognition is not the same as creating or providing.
It's the same with the organizaton of the Roman church...just because it has recognized God's Word--and posesses it, scripture is still God's Word, not the Church's word....which it can control, interpret (and misinterpret...see the Copernicus affair among many others) and enforce at will--according to the needs of the day.
Scripture was written (primarily) by the first Apostles through the authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was a gift TO the Church, not a gift FROM the Church.
When the corruption of the Roman church became so bad in the late medieval period, certain men stood up for the authority of God...through His revealed Word, the scripture, over and above the organization of Rome. They weren't trying to split up the RC church, nor were they arrogantly calling for every man to interpret the bible independently... they were hoping to help the Roman Church to become obedient to the Bible.(if you read, for example, Luther's 95 Theses, it is remarkably respectful and conciliatory...clearly he wasn't picking a fight--but as a respected Roman Catholic university professor/bible scholar, wanted to help reform the RC church) Since they dared rattle the money tree of indulgences...they were subsequently excommunicated, burned at the stake or both...and when the survivors protestested the abuses of power in the name of Catholicism by the Holy Roman Emporer Charles V, they were named (pejoratively) Protestants.
The more I know of Church history, the less attractive the body under the Bishop of Rome appears.
I cannot come up with a non-Magesterial answer, but I am open to suggestions.
80 Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other.
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."[42]
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."[43]
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.
Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."[44]
" The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. Article 3"
bible interpretation the sole right of pope and bishops
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." "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."
891 The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith--he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. ... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. ... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
Catholic Catechism
It is whatever they say it is, or as one of my favorite singers says
"A Roman Catholic, I respect other Christians. We are especially close to those who value apostolic tradition as well as Scripture. But even in this we face further debates that are obstacles to complete Christian unity. THIS IS WHY THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INSISTS THAT SCRIPTURE, TRADITION AND MAGISTERIUM ARE NECESSARY FOR A FULLY UNIFIED PEOPLE. WE ROMAN CATHOLICS FIND THIS IN THE POPE AS BISHOP OF ROME, TOGETHER WITH THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCHES IN FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME. This has theologically freed us to develop the greatest mystical and functional unity in Christendom. It has also given us an authority that enables us to enter into interfaith and ecumenical dialogue without defensiveness. … May we all hear these ancient truths and experience real conversion of heart" (John Talbot, "Our Fathers, and Our Divided Family," New Covenant, September 1997, p. 21).
Sorry if I changed the subject regarding the Canon - but just clarifying to some others who believe that one must be a Roman Catholic to be "in" the Church. (including some Catholics)
You are free to attempt to claim some abstract spiritual authority over Protestants for your church if you like, but many of us do not only not agree with that we actively reject it and deny anything more than a historic tie to the Roman church.
The invisible church is made up of the saved, to that extent any saved within the Catholic church are members of the invisible church, beyond that we have no spiritual connection. To that end anyone that has believed in Christ alone for their salvation is my brother in Christ.
That is sad.
You got one?
Yes I do Jude, but I do not think you would understand it or accept it.
Let's hear it.
The Copernicus affair? What was that?
Protestants set themselves up as authoritative interpreters of Scripture, all the time. I don't recognize their authority any more than you recognize the authority of the Pope.
Why, no, as a matter of fact, I don't, and I would be a bad Catholic if I did.
Public revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle. All of it is contained -- but not always explicitly --within Scripture and the rest of the tradition of the early Church.
Even an ex cathedra statement of a Pope isn't inspired, and can't produce any new public revelation. It's preserved from erring in doing so, but it can still only guard and preserve the revelation that came through the Apostles.
It's no wonder you left the Church if you thought Catholicism meant believing that a Pope's teaching was equal to Scripture. I would too, if I thought that.
Not at all!!!!!!
It was GOD who preserved his word!!! He obviously used the Catholic Church but then he also used Balaam's ass to achieve his purposes, didn't he?
You seem to worship at the feet of the Catholic Church. It is God who is responsible for the state of the Cannon and not any man or organization. Those men who compiled the cannon did so at the direction of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church, like Balaam's ass, was merely an instrument in the hands of God.
Hmmmmm....is it appropriate to be comparing the Catholic Church to an ass????
When they make statements like the one I was responding too, then I'd have to say yes.
Not a good analogy...The "art experts" HAVE seen a true Rembrandt. You take the Catholic Church's WORD that the Scripture is God's Word written down. You are using a circular argument to "recognize" true Scripture by opening up the bible. You know that the Gospel of Thomas is a fraud ONLY because there is someone who has actually seen and heard God's Word AND said "the Gospel of Thomas is not it". Regards
In Dr. Geisler's "Introduction to Theology" he talks quite a bit about the selection of the canon. Going back to pre Nice days. Kind of funny that he didn't mention it.
Ma'am, you should have continued reading paragraph 80, which you quoted so nicely. "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. FOR BOTH OF THEM, FLOWING OUT OF THE SAME DIVINE WELL SPRING, COME TOGETHER IN SOME FASHION TO FORM ONE THING AND MOVE TOWARDS THE SAME GOAL."
That is why Catholics give Apostolic Tradition its due reverance - it is from God! However, it doesn't follow that we hold it as "equal" to Scripture. Take out your handy-dandy Catechism and read Paragraph 103-108, the section on "Christ - the Unique Word of Sacred Scripture". Within these paragraphs, you will find that the Scripture has God as its author, that it has always been venerated as the Church venerates the Lord's Body (the Eucharist) {103}. "She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body." The Council of Trent made the effort to NOT equate the two (Tradition and Scripture). However, they do come from the same source... Jesus Christ. Are you not rejecting part of Jesus Christ, then?
bible interpretation the sole right of pope and bishops
Paragraph 100 is not to mean that no one can read the Scriptures, but rather, that no one can come into opposition with the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church's Magesterium. When two opposing views come from Scripture, we are to accept the view of the Church. Rather than reading a paragraph that is a summary (100), perhaps you should glance at paragraph 91-95. For example, from paragraph 94:
through the contemplation and study of believers (Protestants are not excluded) who ponder these things in their hearts, it is particular "theological research which deepens knowledge of revealed truths.
from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which believers (Protestants not excluded) experience, the Sacred Scripture grow with the one who reads them.
You are encouraged to read the Bible... But when you disagree with the "...preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth", know that you are incorrect, and the Spirit of Truth is correct. Paragraph 100 correctly states WHO is tasked with ensuring we have the correct interpretation, when people disagree.
You are free to attempt to claim some abstract spiritual authority over Protestants for your church if you like, but many of us do not only not agree with that we actively reject it and deny anything more than a historic tie to the Roman church.
Wonderful!! Can you point me to the Church Christ refers to in Matthew 16 and 18? If I have a problem with another Christian, where can I find "the Church" if it is invisible ONLY??? We disagree on the Scriptural teaching of the Eucharist. How can we ever find out the truth? There is only one correct stance - we both cannot be correct. Good thing there is a visible Church in where we can learn the correct answer...
The invisible church is made up of the saved, to that extent any saved within the Catholic church are members of the invisible church, beyond that we have no spiritual connection. To that end anyone that has believed in Christ alone for their salvation is my brother in Christ.
You are free to make some claim of an abstract invisible Church that has practically no basis in Scriptures. You are part of the Church as a result of your Baptism, a Catholic belief done using Catholic words and ritual. Certainly, a visible person baptised you using visible words and visible water, correct?
Regards
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.