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.
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?
So what are the dogmas and doctrines you hold to be infallible? All we've seen is deflection and mimicry.
You have declined to answer but have been asked repeatedly. So we can conclude that there is nothing that YOU hold to be absolutely true either.
If you continue to refuse to answer, I see no reason that anyone should continue to honor your requests for information when you will not likewise do the courtesy that you are demanding of others.
I've pointed that out a time or three dozen on these pages; "Hear Oh, Israel, our God is One"
But I have allowed you to distract us into making this about my own personal beliefs, or yours, when that was not the question.
If you won't answer the central question (or cannot?) or any of the ancillary & related questions which arose, then this is going nowhere.
It's still your turn in that regard (as to what Roman Catholic Magesterium requires) and will remain so as long as the central issue is only approached by way of return questions on your own part.
If we are to now turn to personal opinions instead; (and I owe you no quid pro quo in this, but rather,you are several "pages" behind at this point)
How about the title of this thread? I agree very much with the author of it, and do think he raises interesting points.
Would you care to return to that, read it again (it's fairly short) then venture comment as to the various juxtapositions?
There is an either/or at the bottom, which if considered in light of what boatbums helpfully added;
"...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.
can possibly lead us all to better grasp of what was believed in the beginnings, while setting aside "development" ala' Cardinal Newman's explanation of why that be allowed, but allowed only for the [Roman] Catholic church which he had himself converted to (and was made a bishop, in fairly short order).
Of course the above possibly begs the question as to what was then at the earliest times of that invocation believed (in the church universal) everywhere, always, by everyone, or a.k.a the unanimous consent of the fathers.
It is far easier to claim it, then to actually demonstrate such, but it can be simplified when it can be determined who the "church fathers" actually were.
Let's limit ourselves to the first 3 centuries and see what can be truly unanimous, rather than by special case pleading turn towards majority vote to be = unanimous consent.
Just think, 3 centuries -- that would give a bit more space of time then since the formation of the U.S. Constitution, and we see what has happened with that, as the writer of the article, Michael J. Kruger touched upon.
In the secular world; this is known as a committee.
Votes are taken, and majority rules.
I see nothing that makes corporation decisions absolutely right; why is RELIGION supposedly the ONLY one that can make them?
And about the guys who voted in the MINORITY; shouldn't they be gotten rid of?
After all; they did NOT hear the Voice of GOD when deciding which way to vote.
You're a MUSLIM?
I've pointed that out a time or three dozen on these pages; "Hear Oh, Israel, our God is One"
I'll assume this means it is dogma for you.
Why? How did you arrive at this dogma? Is it infallible?
It would be honest to give your own dogma the same examination that you seem to have given that of the Church.
If you continue to refuse to answer, I see no reason that anyone should continue to honor your requests for information when you will not likewise do the courtesy that you are demanding of others.
I "seem" nothing of the sort.
Category errors on your part. You lean right into them.
Otherwise, to the question as it was framed --- Are you the Magesterium? Jimmy Akin is that you?
Most of the time these pages are crawling with albino monks (and RCIA instructors).
They are never around when a guy needs one. It seems.
As to answers for further "questions" --- here too you are running behind the keeping of scores or count.
There are a few terms which you have used -- and I asked for clarification ---but you refuse to answer.
GO back and find those. It should be easy, and there you may find my be able to divine my own answers which would also render your questions here again to be superfluous.
Why the avoidance in discussing your dogma? Why avoid subjecting it to the same examination?
That would be a dishonest debate or at the least a double standard.
Why must I need to continue to repeat myself?
Now go back and find the questions where I asked to the effect; "who (and what) is this "church" which you speak of".
Define that, right now.
Or -- you may take your continual accusation of "double-standards" and go jump in the lake.
If you want "honest debate" then be so yourself with your own aims, your own wordings, and your own responses.
I'm pages ahead of you in this respect.
This is the second time I am posting this to you. try paying attention this time. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Fr. Ludwig Ott http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1398775362&sr=8-3&keywords=Fundamentals+of+Catholic+Doctrine:
Recognized as the greatest summary of Catholic dogma ever put between two covers. A one-volume encyclopedia of Catholic doctrines. Tells exactly what the Church teaches on any particular topic. Tells when the pronouncement was made and gives the sources from Scripture, Church Councils, Papal statements and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Essential for priests, seminarians, parents and teachers. Easily one of our most important books. 560 pgs, PB
But thank you for your efforts nonetheless.
You haven't answered them. What is your dogma, one example will do. Is it infallible, how decided, by whom on what basis? The same things you are going off on with others. Just say it right here.
If you won't submit to the same examination you wish to perform… I don't think that's something any non-masochist would continue with.
Try it yourself. No really. Hit the link in your own comment and see where it takes one.
But thank you again.
I imagine that many of those 560 pages are introductory notes to the various assembled information, along with some additional explanation of the writer's own as to what those things may mean -- as in brief summaries?
560 pages.
Are there any mirrors in your house?
Define specific terms as you were asked to do, or we cannot go forward.
Meanwhile, try reading Matthew 23 as I gave link for -- then ask yourself, should any do as those who Christ so vigorously upbraided were condemned for doing?
It is not I who have set burdens upon others in any of this, but the inquiry was to what the "Magesterium" (once that can be defined as to who and what that is -- which resembles the same questions you have asked of myself but which you have failed to provide answer for) requires others to believe.
Should I write 560 pages? Must that now be required? Is that my burden I must now shoulder, just to see what burdens others would require of myself?
Oh, wait. I could buy the man's book, I suppose. There's an answer...
Nope, simply submit to the same examination you are performing on others.
How is your dogma determined, by whom, on what basis? would be a good start.
Trying to get a straight answer out of Catholic in regard to what they hold as infallible doctrine is an exercise in futility. They just demand answers to their questions and refuse to answer ones asked them.
There’s no point in attempting to hold a conversation with someone who won’t converse. They won’t do the courtesy of responding as they expect others to do for them.
No wonder they have no credibility.
(waiting for the echo FR seems to have developed....)
A good start you say.
See a previous reply to you #402
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.