What do you believe

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 16 2004, 07:43 PM'] The office of the Pope preceeds scripture. [/quote]
True. I fail to see the relevance of this to the above argument, however.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='XIX' date='Oct 16 2004, 09:02 PM'] Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and [b]the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [/b]

Anything other than Choice A would be a flat out contradiction of the Bible. And just to clarify, the infallible authority of the Chuch only extends as far as faith and morals. [/quote]
The infallible authority of the Church extends only as far as faith and morals? But ask yourself this question: where does Jesus limit Peter's authority to the narrowly defined requirements for Ex Cathedra statements? It seems that the Roman Catholic exegesis proves too much!

[cmotherofpirl]

I was responding to this:

"The Pope's declarations would need to be subordinate to Scripture. "

The office of the Pope preceeds scripture. Scripture comes from the Church and is a part of the Church, but does not judge the Church. It is not ABOVE the Church, and never claims to be.

[Justified Saint]

cmotherofpirl,

I can understand and appreciate your point, but I think the way you phrase it is in danger of being a little misrepresentative of the Catholic understanding of the authority of Church and Bible. It seems very awkward making distinctions between the authority of the Church and the Scriptures as if they were somehow different and one was more important or took "precedence" over the other. Certainly we are all (both Catholic and Protestant) often guilty of making this rather natural distinction when classifying each others position.

Yet, when we talk about the authority of the Scriptures and the Church we are essentianlly talking about the same thing. The Scriptures have no authority outside the Church and likewise the Church has no authority outside the Scriptures - the source of their authority is the same thing, the Word of God. The Word of God supplies for both the written word and the living word (or the Church). The Church should always be seen as the servant and guardian of the Scriptures, protecting it from error and corruption. For the written word can best be seen as the substance of revelation and the living word as the divine interpreter and communicater of Truth. The Word of God can't possibly exist without the two different expressions.


Far from upholding the authority of Scripture then, the result of the Reformation was just the opposite - the authority of Scripture was undermined. The Reformers in many ways divorced the Scriptures from the Church by unkowningly establishing a rather false dichotomy of Church authority and Scriputral authority.

[jmjtina]

[quote]Yet, when we talk about the authority of the Scriptures and the Church we are essentianlly talking about the same thing. The Scriptures have no authority outside the Church and likewise the Church has no authority outside the Scriptures - the source of their authority is the same thing, the Word of God. [/quote]

I'm not understanding you. Correct me if I"m wrong, Are you saying scripture has the sole authority therefore if the Church upholds these purely, then it has authority? Scripture is not the sole rule of authority. Who picked the scripture in the first place? Was there some divine "Table of Contents"? There is a difference of seven books that our separated brothers and sisters do not have. What you will find missing is Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, (including the Letter of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. However, you will find that the New Testament canon of the Catholic Church, the twenty-seven books we share with our separated friends, exist because the authority of the Catholic Church made the selection. It was the Catholic Church who made the selection of what books did or did not belong; therefore all who have the New Testament are adhering to the authority of the Catholic Church. For those who doubt that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has any authority must logically doubt the choice of the books inspired by God.

God Bless.

yeah, I picked A Greg.

[flip]

by this poll, it makes me realize that there are very few non-catholics here. which makes me sad

[dUSt]

[quote name='flip' date='Oct 18 2004, 02:40 PM'] by this poll, it makes me realize that there are very few non-catholics here. which makes me sad [/quote]
Go get some.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='flip' date='Oct 18 2004, 03:40 PM'] by this poll, it makes me realize that there are very few non-catholics here. which makes me sad [/quote]
Or they don't polls.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 17 2004, 12:54 PM']The office of the Pope preceeds scripture. Scripture comes from the Church and is a part of the Church, but does not judge the Church. It is not ABOVE the Church, and never claims to be.[/quote]
Jesus seems to think that the Scripture is what we should judge our doctrines on.

In Matt 22:29 Jesus says that the pharisees "are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

Hmm...??

Also, in Mark 7 he seems to think that the Scriptures are sufficent for judging our doctrines.

[b]sola gratia ~ sola fide ~ sola scriptura ~ solus christus ~ soli deo gloria[/b]

[Brother Adam]

Mark 7 says nothing about the supreme rule of scriptures. Nor does Matthew 22. You're using scripture to draw conclusions that just aren't there. The Bible never says "The canonized scriptures of the New Testament are sufficient for". The word "Sufficient" is never used for "scripture". So there is no "hmmm" about it.

And just how much of the Old Testament do you know? I hardly ever had the Old Testament preached at my fundamental Church. These are scriptures Matthew refers to. The Gospels were not written today. If you cannot use the Bible in context, you bring Jesus' condemnation unto yourself in Matthew 22.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 06:34 PM'] In Matt 22:29 Jesus says that the pharisees "are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

Hmm...?? [/quote]
Logical fallacy. If they were in error because they didn't have knowledge of the Scriptures, that does not make Scriptures the solely sufficient source of doctrine.

If two or more things are necessary for a result, and you lack even one, any one of them, then you cannot obtain that result. This does not mean that that one thing you are missing was the only ingredient necessary to get the result.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 20 2004, 06:55 PM']

[/quote]
[quote]Mark 7 says nothing about the supreme rule of scriptures. Nor does Matthew 22. You're using scripture to draw conclusions that just aren't there. The Bible never says "The canonized scriptures of the New Testament are sufficient for". The word "Sufficient" is never used for "scripture". So there is no "hmmm" about it. [/quote] 2 Tim 3:16-17 has sufficency written all over it, however.

[quote]And just how much of the Old Testament do you know?[/quote] Not as much as I ought to, unfortunately, but I'm working on it, slowly but steadily. It didn't help that my priest all but discouraged me from reading the Scriptures when I was a Roman Catholic, so now I have to begin where I left off now that I'm reformed.

[quote]I hardly ever had the Old Testament preached at my fundamental Church. [/quote] Poor you. I'm an Anglican. This isn't an issue.

[quote]These are scriptures Matthew refers to. The Gospels were not written today. If you cannot use the Bible in context, you bring Jesus' condemnation unto yourself in Matthew 22. [/quote] I don't see how what I said about Matt 22 is inconsistent with the context..

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Logical fallacy.  If they were in error because they didn't have knowledge of the Scriptures, that does not make Scriptures the solely sufficient source of doctrine.[/quote] Fine, but this brings us to Rome's forbidding the faithful to have the Scriptures in their own language, doesn't it? If a people don't have knowledge of the Scriptures they are bound to be in error - that's how Rome was able to keep the truth supressed for so long. Once people started to read the Bible for themselves they saw that Rome was wrong, and no amount of supression of God's word could stop them

[Paladin D]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:21 PM'] Fine, but this brings us to Rome's forbidding the faithful to have the Scriptures in their own language, doesn't it? If a people don't have knowledge of the Scriptures they are bound to be in error - that's how Rome was able to keep the truth supressed for so long. Once people started to read the Bible for themselves they saw that Rome was wrong, and no amount of supression of God's word could stop them [/quote]
1. Latin was the official language of the Church, it still is.

2. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Latin was somewhat a universal language, similar to what English is today.

3. Printing press wasn't invented till the 15th or 16th century.

4. Bibles were hand-copied, they were extremely valuable. They didn't dare have people take a Bible home and use highlight marker all over it. Not to mention some actually have looted Bibles, so they had to chain them to the church.


They didn't have printers back then, buddy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 20 2004, 08:21 PM'] Fine, but this brings us to Rome's forbidding the faithful to have the Scriptures in their own language, doesn't it? If a people don't have knowledge of the Scriptures they are bound to be in error - that's how Rome was able to keep the truth supressed for so long. Once people started to read the Bible for themselves they saw that Rome was wrong, and no amount of supression of God's word could stop them [/quote]
Well, first off, Rome had the scriptures in Latin, which was the common language in the West until quite a while after the empire collapsed. In the East, the common language was Koine Greek, which is what the original copies of the New Testament texts were written in, and the Septuagint was also available.

It is interesting to note that Wyclif, in 1380, made references to two different translations from the Vulgate, long before any Protestant versions surfaced.

In fact, the written languages of Slavonic, Gaelic, and German all derived from the Church's attempts to evangelize with the Scriptures. The monk Ulfilas in 381 AD translated portions of Scripture (the whole may have existed, but little has survived) into German manuscript. Before Luther, there were already nearly 24 printed German editions of the Bible.

Why not more? Why not earlier, you say?

Literacy was extremely low until AFTER the printing press was invented, because it caused the boom in literature instruction. The boom had to wait on the printing press because otherwise the cost of individual Bibles would have been far too high. What is the purpose of making hundreds of different translations when the only people who will be able to afford them are the people who know Latin already? Why make hundreds of different types of translations when no one will buy them? They would simply fill up the shelves.

I suppose next you are going to try the claim that the Bibles were chained down because the Church didn't want them to be seen by the public?