The Authority Of Scripture

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1118545' date='Nov 12 2006, 11:03 PM']
So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?
[/quote]
They are both authoritative, but Tradition is older and chose the Scripture.

[beatty07]

It's a false dichotomy. It's like asking "which is more important, money or dollars?"

Scripture IS tradition....backing up the earlier point about how the canon was formed. A bunch of bishops decided. So anybody who believes that Matthew is the Word of God and Thomas isn't, believes in the infallibility of the magisterium. Because there is simply NO other reason whatsoever to say "this is the Bible and that isn't." Jesus didn't leave a book. Nor did He leave a list of future books. He left a Church, with Apostles in charge.

That being said, Catholics DO say that Scripture is 'normative' for Tradition. Meaning it interprets, limits, and supports all subsequent doctrine. The magisterium stands under the authority of Scripture... but it remains true that Scripture only came to us through the magisterium!

So it is fair to say that Scripture has a higher place, and is more important, than all OTHER tradition. You just can't really set up a dichotomy between the two.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1118545' date='Nov 12 2006, 09:03 PM']
So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?
[/quote]
They are equal. The fullness of the Word of God is contained 100% in scripture and 100% in tradition.

We believe the bible is formally sufficient for all truth, ie all truth is there. However, it is not materially sufficient, ie not anyone, with the power of the HS, can open the bible and find those truthes. Christ promised the Apostles the HS would lead them in all truth. He did not promise every Tom Johnsonville brat and Harry (or Martin, John, and Henry) they would be lead to all truth. From Paul, we see some are called to serve the body of Christ (Chruch) in different functions, including the roll of Apostle.

Scripture properly interpreted never contradicts Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition never contradicts the proper interpretation of Scripture.

All inspired scripture is God breathed.

The Apostles were God breathed.

The Apostles passed their power to the bishops, which survives with the same power today (Apostolic Succession).

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1118545' date='Nov 12 2006, 11:03 PM']
So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?
[/quote]I gave you a one-line answer in my post above. Here's a longer and more satisfactory answer.

Raphael gave you a link to [i]Dei Verbum[/i], The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from the documents of Vatican II. Perhaps you didn't want to read it all? Here's part of what it says about Scripture and Tradition:

"9. . . . Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And 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. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. [b]Hence both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence. [/b]

"10. [b]Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. [/b] By adhering to it the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (cf. Acts 2:42 Greek) . . .

[b]"But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.[/b] Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is its servant. . .sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected that one of them cannot stand without the others. . . they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

For the full text, use the link Raphael posted.

An example of Tradition is the list of the table of contents of the Bible. Another is the doctrine of the Trinity.

Thank you for your questions. We'd like to give you shorter answers, but Catholicism doesn't fit in a teacup (the words of convert and former Anglican clergyman John Henry Newman).

===============================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Edited November 13, 2006 by Katholikos

[Cam42]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1118545' date='Nov 12 2006, 10:03 PM']
So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?
[/quote]

They are equal. But it was Tradition that brought forth the Canon of Scripture that we have today.

[Joolye]

[quote]An example of Tradition is the list of the table of contents of the Bible. Another is the doctrine of the Trinity. [/quote]

Well then, doesn't that mean that Protestants have Tradition too?

[quote]That being said, Catholics DO say that Scripture is 'normative' for Tradition. Meaning it interprets, limits, and supports all subsequent doctrine. The magisterium stands under the authority of Scripture... but it remains true that Scripture only came to us through the magisterium![/quote]

Does everyone else agree with what Beatty has written? What is the magisterium? Can the word 'church' be inserted in the above quote instead of magisterium?

[quote]Scripture properly interpreted never contradicts Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition never contradicts the proper interpretation of Scripture.[/quote]

Good. What about issues upon which the Scriptures are silent?

[quote]the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone[/quote]

What is the living teaching office of the Church? Are regular believers to just accept what they are told? Shouldn't they test it against Scripture? Does the Catholic Church have like a prescribed commentary that describes what each verse means, so that regular believers don't have to interpret them? Can individuals not exegete texts for themselves?

New thing - If I were to get into Tradition more, I think I would lean more towards the Orthodox church, so what is wrong with the Orthodox church?

[RC_]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1119377' date='Nov 13 2006, 11:06 PM']
Well then, doesn't that mean that Protestants have Tradition too?

[/quote]

Protestants deny Tradition.

[Joolye]

But at the bare minimum we have a table of contents in the Bible, and we have doctrinal stuff.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1119401' date='Nov 13 2006, 11:21 PM']
But at the bare minimum we have a table of contents in the Bible, and we have doctrinal stuff.
[/quote]
The table of contents, what is in the Bible, was decided by the Catholic Church. The dogmas of the Trinity were defined by the Catholic Church. The Creeds come from the Church. The heresies were condemned by the Church.
There is no point in "testing" things against Scripture because the Scripture is CATHOLIC. Scriptures are a snaphot of time in the life of the Church, but no where do they claim to be authoritative. Thats why St Paul calls the church the pillar and foundation.
The Scriptures are the Word of God because the Catholic Church guarentees them as such, becuause the Church has the God-given authority to do so.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1116848' date='Nov 10 2006, 12:59 PM']
Let me throw the following into the mix:

Matthew 16:18: And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

John 21:15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

The quote from Matthew makes direct reference to the Church, prior to the Crucifixion, while the latter alludes to the Church just after the Resurrection but prior to the Ascension or Pentecost.

Your thoughts?
[/quote]


[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1116854' date='Nov 10 2006, 01:08 PM']

John - this is not the institution of the Church, but rather the reconciliation of Peter after the Resurrection. Peter denied Christ 3x before the crucifixtion - this is Peter embracing Christ fully 3x in counterpoint. IMHO an incredibly deeply moving narrative on forgiveness. Even after denying Christ himself, not once, but multiple times, forgiveness and reconciliation is there... On another level of this section, Christ is indeed reasserting the primacy of Peter over his lambs/sheep - the Church. This passage ALSO proves the existence of the Church before the composition of the NT.

[/quote]


I have heard Scott Hahn speak about that verse in Matthew. This interpretation, by the way, was stumbled upon by Hahn when he was a protestant.

Jesus is descended from David. No one denies this. David, as a king, had a cabinet of ministers. all of them would take care of different duties in the kingdom, but David did have a 'prime minister' of sorts, one that he trusted more than all the rest. This minister was given the keys to the palace, he would open and close the gates at morning and night, and would speak to the people for the king on occasion. Jesus, son of David, was also a king. Jesus followed the Israeli tradition of having a 'prime minister', to whom he gave the keys of his kingdom. This was Peter.

I don't really do that interpretation credit. Someone at FUS needs to ask Dr. Hahn and then post it here .

I really believe that when Jesus asks Peter whether he loves him, the important part is when he tells him to feed his lambs. Also, in the greek, aren't two different words for 'love' used? I'm pretty sure that the first two times Jesus asks, philos is used (greek scholars, forgive me. i havent studied greek....), and the third time agape is used. however, when peter answers for the third time, he again uses philos. this would be significant, don't you think? Peter WAS repenting for his denial, but then when Jesus asked him, "Do you agape me, do you love me with everything that you are," Peter could not respond "yes, I do agape you" but instead with "Lord, you know that I philos you." Peter WAS being commanded to provide for the Lord's Church, but he was not entirely ready yet. This is why the apostles had to wait for Pentecost.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1119401' date='Nov 13 2006, 11:21 PM']
But at the bare minimum we have a table of contents in the Bible, and we have doctrinal stuff.
[/quote]Protestants have rejected the Sacred Apostolic Tradition and have substituted their own. They have rejected Tradition but have traditions. The table of contents in your Bible is a reduction of the original. The "doctrinal stuff" Protestants have varies from church to church and comes from yet another biblical interpretation rather than the teaching of the Apostles.

Tradition means the oral teaching of the Apostles and the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church in interpreting and understanding both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Christ promised that He Himself would remain with the Church [b]always [/b](Mt 28:20) and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth [b]always[/b] (Jn 14:16, 16:13 et al.).

========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[beatty07]

Sorry about the Catholic lingo! "Magisterium" comes from the Latin root "magister", which means "teacher." It's the teaching office of the Church. Could you substitute "The Church?" Well, lots of people do, but it's a little less precise. For instance, I am part of "The Church" but not part of the magisterium. Who is? Basically the magisterium is all the bishops in the world, in communion with Peter their head. That's the Pope, of course. That's a simplification of sorts, but pretty much accurate.

Are you really attracted to the Orthodox Church? As a Catholic, I would love to see you take that step because it would bring you to the Sacraments. In other words, it would be a step in the right direction. But not the final step. Christ founded a Church, with Peter at her head, and the Orthodox have separated themselves from that communion. While we acknowledge the validity of their Sacraments and the integrity of their faith, the schism is contrary to Christ's will that we be one.

To complicate things even further, you might look into the Orthodox Catholic Churches. These are Churches that maintain Eastern Orthodox liturgical rites and practices, but have rejoined communion with the Pope. They have names like "Byzantine Catholic" and "Antiochene Catholic", and they are every bit as Catholic as Roman Catholics are.

[RC_]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1119961' date='Nov 14 2006, 04:36 PM']

To complicate things even further, you might look into the Orthodox Catholic Churches. These are Churches that maintain Eastern Orthodox liturgical rites and practices, but have rejoined communion with the Pope. They have names like "Byzantine Catholic" and "Antiochene Catholic", and they are every bit as Catholic as Roman Catholics are.
[/quote]

I think the term is "Eastern Rite" Catholic Church.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1118545' date='Nov 12 2006, 08:03 PM']
So, what is the answer? Which is more authoritative, Scripture or Tradition?
[/quote]
Joolye-

They are equal.

As a poor analogy, if i write you a note and say, 'empty the garbage', and also call you and say 'order some tacos, so very tasty and good for you, for dinner', would you put one above the other? Would one have more authority than the other? No, you would empty the trash and order some tacos, so very tasty and good for you, for dinner.

I think alot of Protestants feel there are conflicts between the Scripture and Tradition, thus find the need to ask this question. Or they ask this question as a springboard to *show* the un-divinity or un-biblicalness of Tradition. Fortunately with an open mind, and some reading, q/a, and other modes of information gathering, this 'contradiction' argument is rendered null.

JMJ,

MIKolbe

[Katholikos]

Joolye,

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, as has been stated by others, are in schism from the Catholic Church. The Orthodox argue that the Catholics left [i]them[/i], but just consider the early creeds of the Church. The Apostles Creed and all subsequent creeds state: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" -- not the Holy Orthodox Church.

I considered Orthodoxy. I found that there is no "Orthodox" Church, but several separate Churches, who lack unity among them. Orthodoxy is factionalized into several ethnic jursidictions which exert a strong political influence over them. I would have had to become a Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or Ukrainian Orthodox, etc.

My third reason for not becoming Orthodox was doctrinal. The Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage -- they draw the line, as I recall, at 3 divorces, 2 remarriages. I'll have to research the number. And, although they consider themselves pro-life, they allow contraception -- including chemical contraception ("the Pill"), which sometimes, perhaps often, causes early abortion.

Also, there are are different Bibles among them. Again, this illustrates the lack of unity. They need a Pope.

=================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!