Can a faithful Catholic affirm this?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote][T]he Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.[/quote]

The quote, while clearly intended to be interpreted according to evangelical protestant theology, can be read in a manner that is in accordance with our Catholic Faith.

Scripture is the Word of God, and Christ is the word made flesh. In no uncertain terms we rightly say that Christ is the [i]living[/i] Scripture. The Scripture is not authoritative because it is scripture, it is authoritative because it is Christ written out for us to read. Christ is also the Church, for the Church is His Mystical Body, and He is the head of the Church.

Now, as catholics, in faithfully affirming the above quote about the authority and power of Scripture, we understand ourselves to be affirming the authority and power of Christ, who manifests himself to us in the Scriptures. This same Christ also manifests himself to us in the Church - in both the living magisterium and holy tradition. Thus we see that Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are indeed One, much like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One.

As catholics, the authority of Tradition is not for us different or seperate from the authority of Scripture or the Magisterium. It is the same authority, and that is the one, ultimate authority: Christ.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Sojourner]

Another (part of a) post from Open Book:

[quote] ... And the Wheaton Statement of Faith only says of Holy Scriptures that “they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.” It does not follow from that claim that they say everything, saying, for example, those elements of the Word of God involved in Sacred Tradition. Consequently, they may be of supreme and final authority in all they say, without in any way being in conflict with what they do not say, those elements that are also part of the Word of God, namely Sacred Tradition. In fact, Dei Verbum makes it pretty clear that we cannot hold that there is a conflict between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. From which it appears to follow that Sacred Scripture is indeed the “supreme and final authority in all [it] says,” since Sacred Tradition cannot contradict it, and the teaching authority of the Church is “not above it…but serves it.”[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 04:41 PM']The quote, while clearly intended to be interpreted according to evangelical protestant theology, can be read in a manner that is in accordance with our Catholic Faith.
[right][snapback]851873[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Perhaps, but I don't think you can take a statement of faith apart from the intent of its author. If, for example, a pagan emperor told you to sign a statement that read "Jesus is not God", you would refuse to sign it; not because it can't be read in a Catholic way (biblically, the title of "God" usually refers to the person of God the Father), but because the intent would be to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 02:46 PM']Perhaps, but I don't think you can take a statement of faith apart from the intent of its author. If, for example, a pagan emperor told you to sign a statement that read "Jesus is not God", you would refuse to sign it; not because it can't be read in a Catholic way (biblically, the title of "God" usually refers to the person of God the Father), but because the intent would be to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
[right][snapback]851880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In answering the question "do you agree with this statement?" I think you most certainly can take statement apart from the intent of the authors. In fact, it is precisely the seperation between intent and statement that allows for the catholic doctrine of mental reservation.

If I have Jews hiding in the storm cellar, and Nazis ask me "are there any Jews in this house?" I will say "no" even though it is clearly their intent for the question to ask whether or not I am hiding Jews anywhere. The Church would say that was the right thing to do.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 04:35 PM']In answering the question "do you agree with this statement?" I think you most certainly can take statement apart from the intent of the authors. In fact, it is precisely the seperation between intent and statement that allows for the catholic doctrine of mental reservation.

If I have Jews hiding in the storm cellar, and Nazis ask me "are there any Jews in this house?" I will say "no" even though it is clearly their intent for the question to ask whether or not I am hiding Jews anywhere. The Church would say that was the right thing to do.
[/quote]
Mental reservation? I think that this was discussed [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44726"]here on this thread. [/url].

[Guest JeffCR07]

yep, and you can find a concise explanation of the doctrine on New Advent as well. The point is, the intent and the statement itself most certainly [i]can[/i] be seperated with no wrongdoing.

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 11:30 PM']yep, and you can find a concise explanation of the doctrine on New Advent as well. The point is, the intent and the statement itself most certainly [i]can[/i] be seperated with no wrongdoing.
[right][snapback]852309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, would you sign the hypothetical letter from a Pagan emperor, and if not, would you justify someone else doing so?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:31 PM']Just out of curiosity, would you sign the hypothetical letter from a Pagan emperor, and if not, would you justify someone else doing so?
[right][snapback]852313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, but not because I can't seperate intent from statement. I wouldn't sign it because there is absolutely no theological understanding that allows me to do so. If the statement was "Jesus is not God the Father" sure, I'd sign it.

Your argument that the common usage of the word "God" applied only to the Father is fallacious, because we are talking about a time prior to the formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine. They didn't know that God was Three Persons, so of course the term was usually applied to the Father.

[Guest JeffCR07]

also, forgive me if I sound rude or overbearing, but do you have an actual reply to my arguments?

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 11:38 PM']No, but not because I can't seperate intent from statement. I wouldn't sign it because there is absolutely no theological understanding that allows me to do so. If the statement was "Jesus is not God the Father" sure, I'd sign it.

Your argument that the common usage of the word "God" applied only to the Father is fallacious, because we are talking about a time prior to the formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine. They didn't know that God was Three Persons, so of course the term was usually applied to the Father.
[right][snapback]852321[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disagree. Paul knew very well that God was a Trinity. His language is still used to this day. For example:

[quote]Now God's Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance

--CCC #687[/quote]

We see here that God (ie, God the Father) is distinguished from his "Spirit", and "his Word" (ie, Christ). This is just a biblical manner of speaking.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 11:39 PM']also, forgive me if I sound rude or overbearing, but do you have an actual reply to my arguments?
[right][snapback]852322[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I don't. Honestly, I haven't studied the question of mental reservation enough to give an informed opinion, except to say I would not, in fact, sign such a statement of faith, because for me, it would be a lie, either way.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:45 PM']I disagree. Paul knew very well that God was a Trinity. His language is still used to this day. For example:
We see here that God (ie, God the Father) is distinguished from his "Spirit", and "his Word" (ie, Christ). This is just a biblical manner of speaking.
[right][snapback]852328[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here is the whole par.
[quote]687 "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." 7 Now God's Spirit, who [b]reveals God[/b], makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who "has spoken through the prophets" makes us hear the Father's Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which [b]he reveals the Word to us [/b]and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who "[b]unveils" Christ[/b] to us "will not speak on his own." 8 Such properly divine self-effacement explains why "the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him," while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them. 9 [/quote]
It would sound to me as though the first bolded section is speaking about God as Trinity and not simply as God the Father. The Spirit reveals God as Trinity because, as pointed out later, it unveils Christ to us, the Word. The Spirit, in this case, reveals God to us as He is, Trinitarian, and not simply the Father as we would have to read it as you propose. The Spirit of God reveals God (as Trinity) with the unveiling of Christ as the Word.

My point is that the first use of the word "God" cannot be understood as applying only to the Father for the paragraph goes on to mention how the Spirit reveals Christ to us as the Word.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Jan 11 2006, 12:02 AM']Here is the whole par.

It would sound to me as though the first bolded section is speaking about God as Trinity and not simply as God the Father. The Spirit reveals God as Trinity because, as pointed out later, it unveils Christ to us, the Word. The Spirit, in this case, reveals God to us as He is, Trinitarian, and not simply the Father as we would have to read it as you propose. The Spirit of God reveals God (as Trinity) with the unveiling of Christ as the Word.

My point is that the first use of the word "God" cannot be understood as applying only to the Father for the paragraph goes on to mention how the Spirit reveals Christ to us as the Word.
[right][snapback]852353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Again, I disagree, because the Spirit is said to reveal "God". This God is then referred to personally, as "his", and Christ is said to be "his" Word. Christ is begotten of the Father alone.

[quote]Now God's Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance[/quote]

The phrase "his Word" makes it clear that the "God" spoken of is God the Father. The entire statement is a delineation of the particular roles of each person in the Trinity: God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 02:46 PM']Perhaps, but I don't think you can take a statement of faith apart from the intent of its author. If, for example, a pagan emperor told you to sign a statement that read "Jesus is not God", you would refuse to sign it; not because it can't be read in a Catholic way (biblically, the title of "God" usually refers to the person of God the Father), but because the intent would be to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
[right][snapback]851880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The difference between your example and the Wheaton's statement is that your statement explicitely 'negates' a possibility, while the Wheaton statement affirms something.

To draw a proper parrallel from your example to the Wheaton statement one would say "Do you agree that the Magistorium does not form an authority upon the interpretation of the scriptures." or some negation to that effect. But this meaning is not explicitely expresed in the Wheaton statement itself.

As i posted before, the Wheaton statement does not say that Scriptures are the only source of authority; it is open to other sources of authority, and thus does not (IMHO) contradict explicitely, the Catholic faith.

If the intent was to exclude the Catholic faith with this Wheaton statement, then it is my opinion that the protestants who formed the statement better do a bit more homework and come up with something clearer - maybe a bit more clever even, than the statement they came up with, since this statement falls short of its purpose.

But was the intent specifically to reject the Catholic doctrine(s) or to affirm the Protestant one which happens not to contradict the Catholic doctrine.


I am not convinced this Wheaton statement is wrong for a Catholic to take. At least not yet.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:30 PM']The point is, the intent and the statement itself most certainly [i]can[/i] be seperated with no wrongdoing.
[right][snapback]852309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

<pointless>
I have lots of fun with that! I love to answer the question or statement instead of the intended question.
</pointless>

By agreeing to the statement, by saying it is the supreme authority, doesn't that mean there's no equal, ie out with Tradition?