Posted on 04/20/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Gamecock
The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church. If you take the latter position, then you are (generally speaking) a Protestant who believes the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church. But, here is the irony: Roman Catholics also claim to be “under” the authority of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (2.10), and the Catholic Catechism declares: “Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant” (86). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place. Moreover, the Magisterium seems to “discover” doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itself—e.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.
My friend and colleague James Anderson has written a helpful blog post that brings even further clarity to this issue. He begins by observing the judicial activism that happens all too often in the American political system. Judges go well beyond the original intent of the constitution and actually create new laws from the bench. He then argues:
What has happened in the US system of government almost exactly parallels what happened in the government of the Christian church over the course of many centuries, a development that finds its fullest expression in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible serves as the constitution of the Christian faith. It is the covenant documentation. It defines the Christian church: what constitutes the church, what is its mission, who runs the church and how it should be run, what are the responsibilities of the church, what is the scope of its authority, what laws govern the church and its members, and so forth. Once the constitution has been written, the task of the ‘judges’ (the elders/overseers of the church) is to interpret and apply it according to its original intent. Their task is not to create new laws or to come up with “interpretations” that cannot be found in the text of the constitution itself (interpreted according to original intent) and would never have crossed the minds of the “founding fathers” (Eph. 2:20).
Yet that’s just what happened over the course of time with the development of episcopacy, the rise of the papacy, and the increasing weight given to church tradition. To borrow Grudem’s phrasing: If the Bible didn’t say something something that the bishops wanted it to say, or thought it should say, they could claim to “discover” new doctrines in the Bible — purgatory, indulgences, apostolic succession, papal infallibility, etc. — and no one would have power to overrule them.
Adapting the candid statement of Chief Justice Hughes, today’s Roman Catholic might well put it thus: “We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what the Pope says it is.” In fact, that’s exactly how things stand in practice. Functionally the Pope has become the highest governing authority in his church: higher even than the Bible. The church has been derailed by “ecclesial activism”.
Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority. Rome is committed to sola ecclesia. And this clarifies the real difference between Protestants and Catholics. Something has to be the ultimate authority. It is either Scripture or the church.
I have wondered something. When I was in school back in the good ole days, we had fish on Fridays for the few Catholics in town. Then it was changed. Why? If it were so important, why quit believing it?
Then where do you get your dogma and is it infallible or not?
Again, double standard.
Are you five point or.. ?
If there were 7 points I’d be that, but for now it’s 5.
Ha!
Thanks for making that clear. I was indeed attacking the position of infallible dogma, as in the premise upon which this is based, but which is not a dbl standard. There is no objection in principle to holding that something is Truth, without error, and we can even agree with Muslims on some things .
But the issue is the basis for Truth and interpretation of it. And my criticism of Rome is that of her basis for declaring things infallible, which is the premise of assured perpetual infallibility of office.
And which presumes this is promised as being necessary for the providence and assurance of Truth and preservation of the faith, and that this status is manifested by historical descent as being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation.
...There is no objection in principle to holding that something is Truth, without error… And my criticism of Rome is that of her basis for declaring things infallible, which is the premise of assured perpetual infallibility of office.
Am I correct in reading this that you don't have a problem with 'someone' declaring things infallible, but only on what basis it is done so?
If so, who would be acceptable to you and on what basis? Notice, I assume there must always be a 'who.' I think that is true infallibly. :)
YOU be safe! We don’t get tornadoes here. Terrain is not conducive for them forming.
Not to mention something that cannot be shown to be quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus or what (has been held) always, everywhere, by everybody. A MAJOR measuring rod by which heresy was disputed from the start of Christianity.
There is a place for tradition.
I never said I subscribed to "dogma" or that doing so for a particular set of those is of absolute necessity (as a Roman Catholic Pontiff "infallibly"(?) declared must be so in regards to Ineffabilis Deus) unless one wishes to refer to scripture and the Gospel which can be found therein as dogma -- which if we were to do so, would be another of those category errors if those were to compared straight across, one to another.
Unless --- Rome now regards it's own dogmas concerning scripture to be equal with scripture? If that be the case, then what are these dogmas said necessary to be believed?
I listed one, bringing portion of the written demand that it must be believed and how that is an actual dogma in the opinion of the Roman Catholic church ecclesiastical community, which all persons have been strictly required to believe under language such as;
Revealed by God? Now who are the Latter-Day Gnostics? When you earlier had pondered if I were one of those, were you lonely and looking for a friend?
See the Latter-Day Gnosticism as the above if you wish to see something of double standards?
But as applied to the set of questions, not really any "double" of my own. Not nearly enough to the extent which can let Rome off the hook, for there is no actual identical one-to-one comparison by which it can be demonstrated that differing standards are being applied to things identical enough to require identical standards.
As I also mentioned -- this was not about your personal beliefs directly either, but that which could be said to be required by "Magesterium" of the Roman Catholic church.
I have explained some of those differences, touching upon them again in the above. If you can't see them, I don't know if that is willful 'not seeing' in order to maintain the defensive dodge away from openly and forthrightly dealing with the inquiries, or if you truly do not understand the significance of the differences.
What now? Since I said 'Rome' will that open things up to be considered the city itself is on a hook?
That would make an interesting episode of River Monsters, wouldn't it?
You still haven't touched any of the other inquiry, or clarified your own statements as to precisely who and what this "church" is which you speak of, and what it is which it demands that all must believe, but by some invisible measures had told me what I think of "it", or not.
I gave some beginning clarifications, having to operate under guess and assumption of what it is you may be talking about, but which you will not here more clearly define -- even though I did supply a small "starter set".
Perhaps some albino monks could be of some assistance in clarifying what must be assented to without complaint. Either that or some RCIA instructor.
I hear the latter can be a bit more approachable than the oh-so-touchy albino monks who have a reputation for "going off" on a person who may dare disagree with the idea that "Rome" has the authority to declare pretty much whatever she pleases. Aah, but if anyone else ventures towards doing comparably similar --- then that is proof they are not "right" and cannot be correct.
Now, just who is it who really has what can be regarded as double standards?
Do these splinters in my eyes make me look as fat as a giant old tree-log?
From an acorn has grown a mighty oak.
But if an oak, it be the sightless nature of trees, which not being able to "see", may like to think of itself by itself as a lonely forest? The only one on earth, even. Oh but wait -- it kissed a Koran, and entertained "religious" dancers. Near to forest groves...
They've been shown Scripture that PROVES it!
(And NOT shown scripture that doesn't!)
We get them here!
My daughter’s family went through one that went across the south part of Indianapolis 11 years ago.
By the grace of God it skipped over there house, while tearing up the one just east of their house and the one across the street.
They only lost a small awning, a trampoline and a few treetops.
There is nothing you hold as absolutely true?
If you believe in nothing, you believe in everything. I sincerely don't that is the case for you.
In terms of your religion, what do you believe is absolutely true?
Sorry, meant to type:
I sincerely don’t *think* that is the case for you.
But again, this is not about personal belief as much as it is about the beliefs which are said to be required by this allegedly infallible "magesterium".
But I see you won't answer anything of the sort.
I'm wasn't being cagey about not expressing some outline or description of my own beliefs.
So, without being cagey, what is your dogma?
For a change of pace.
There is only One God.
Now 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.