The Authority Of Scripture

[beatty07]

I actually met Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in February in Constantinople (don't call it Istanbul around him!). It's funny because he is very open to dialogue with the Roman Church, but most Orthodox don't really follow him. The Greeks are pretty tuned in to whatever the monks on Mt. Athos say, the Russians seem to place the Patriarchate of Moscow above Rome OR Constantinople... it's messy.

However, it doesn't bother them much because they don't conceive of unity the same way we do. Look up "autocephalous" for further understanding.

John Paul II was so passionate about healing this schism, but it will clearly take a miracle. He, of course, didn't see that as an obstacle! Maybe our generation will see substantial progress so that the Church can again "breathe with both lungs."

Until then, the Church is with Peter.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1120791' date='Nov 15 2006, 03:04 PM']
However, it doesn't bother them much because they don't conceive of unity the same way we do. Look up "autocephalous" for further understanding.[/quote]For Joolye: The 22 Orthodox Churches who have come home to Rome since the schism occurred are "autonomous" but not "autocephalous." They each have their own language, liturgy, and law. These Eastern Catholic Churches are orthodox but not Orthodox. They all profess exactly the same Faith as Latin Rite (Roman Rite) Catholics and are united with and under the Pope.

I think there are only 21 Churches in this category, because the Maronite Catholic Church never became Orthodox.

[quote]Until then, the Church is with Peter.
[/quote]I'm sure you'll agree: the Church will always be with Peter.

[Joolye]

I still don't have a full understanding of the issue between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church.

[quote]The Eastern Orthodox Churches, as has been stated by others, are in schism from the Catholic Church. The Orthodox argue that the Catholics left them, but just consider the early creeds of the Church. [/quote]

Are you saying that the Orthodox church accepts the early church Traditions, but not the later ones?

[quote]The Apostles Creed and all subsequent creeds state: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" -- not the Holy Orthodox Church. [/quote]

I thought it said "the Holy catholic church". Anglicans and some other denominations accept this creed I believe.

Now, I thought the Orthodox church does have a Pope, but it is a different pope to the Catholic pope. I guess I misunderstood something somewhere!

I think Orthodox priests can be married, is that right? Also do they ordain women?

How does the Catholic church go with contextualisation? The GNT was written in a specific time and place. The church started at a specific time and place. Our culture today is different and there is more equality between men and women. If Christ had come today, he probably would have established a church that looks quite different to the Catholic church or the early church.

Are The Didache, the writing of Ignatius of Antioch, and the writing of Augustine part of Tradition?

Please pray to the Lord for me that I may seek first the Kingdom of God and not follow after the selfish desires of my heart.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Joolye

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1121442' date='Nov 16 2006, 12:38 AM']
I still don't have a full understanding of the issue between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church.[/quote]It is basically a question of authority. The Orthodox Churches (plural) dispute the primacy of St Peter (and his successors). There are a few other issues, but this is the main one. For a fuller outline of the issues, go to [url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/catholicism-and-orthodoxy-comparison.html"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/cat...comparison.html[/url] (Dave Armstrong)

[quote]Are you saying that the Orthodox church accepts the early church Traditions, but not the later ones?[/quote]No. There are no later ones. We need to distinguish tradition (customs) and the oral teaching of the Apostles, known as Sacred Apostolic Tradition, that was not written down in what later became the Scriptures. This is the Tradition referred to by St. Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 RSV: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or mouth or by letter."

Tradition (capital T) is from the [i]Depositum Fidei[/i], the Deposit of Faith, that was left to the Church by the Apostles. There was only one Church, and the Orthodox were part of it. They also base their Faith on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. However, without the guidance of the Pope and the Councils, their doctrines are at variance with the Catholic Faith in some instances.

There is plenty of fault on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox divide. John Paul II worked very hard for the reconciliation and reunification of these two ancient Churches. Pope Benedict XVI is continuing those efforts.

Orthodox doctrine is very close to Catholic doctrine. For example, Orthodox Churches have the same seven sacraments. The Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, in some cases, celebrate the same liturgy.

The Orthodox Churches accept only the first seven ecumenical councils (up to the Second Council of Nicaea in A.D. 787). They have not had a council since then that was binding on all of them. This never made sense to me.

I'll answer your other questions separately and soon.

Peace be with you.

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

[Katholikos]

[b]Joolye wrote (about the Apostles Creed):[/b]

[quote]I thought it said "the Holy catholic church". Anglicans and some other denominations accept this creed I believe.[/quote]
The Apostles Creed was originally written in Greek, so I don’t know whether “Katholikos” was capitalized in the original text (if it exists) or not. Sometimes 'Catholic' is capitalized in English, sometimes not. It means “universal,” a name given to the Church, probably by the Apostles, and put into writing by Ignatius of Antioch, a student of St. John’s, in about A.D. 107.

The Orthodox call themselves "the holy, orthodox, catholic (small 'c'), Eastern Church." (Greek: [i]orthos[/i], right + [i]doksa[/i], opinion)

Yes, Anglicans and some other Christian bodies have adopted the Apostles Creed, considering themselves to be part of the “universal” church. But they don’t mean what we mean when we recite it. Examples: we mean the Catholic Church whose head is Christ and whose vicar (deputy) on earth is St. Peter and his successors. By Communion of Saints we mean all those members of the Church who are on earth, in purgatory, or in Heaven with whom we communicate and who are concerned for us and pray for us. Same words, different meaning. The creeds refer to the Church founded by Christ, not the one founded by Henry VIII and Edward VI, or Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, etc. But the use of the creed by other Christians indicates how much we have in common.

The Council of Nicaea was a meeting of the bishops of the Catholic Church, but some Protestant bodies use the Nicene Creed as well, writing ‘catholic’ with a small “c.”

For the text of the three ancient creeds, Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian, go here: [url="http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/creeds.htm"]http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/creeds.htm[/url]

I'll answer your other questions promptly.

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

[Katholikos]

[b]Post #3 of 3 posts.

Joolye wrote:[/b]

[quote]Now, I thought the Orthodox church does have a Pope, but it is a different pope to the Catholic pope. I guess I misunderstood something somewhere![/quote]
Very early in the life of the Church, all bishops were called Pope (Greek, pappas, a child’s word for father). Gradually, over time, in the West the title came to be reserved for the Bishop of Rome. The heads of most Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches are called Patriarchs, who have authority over other bishops. I know of one Orthodox prelate who is called Pope. Can't remember his name. I'll research Orthodox popes and post my findlings. (BTW, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is also a Patriarch.)

[quote]I think Orthodox priests can be married, is that right? Also do they ordain women?[/quote]A) Yes, if a man is already married before ordination. But if a man is single when he is ordained, he stays unmarried. All Orthodox bishops must be unmarried. B) No, the Orthodox do not ordain women for the same reasons they cannot be ordained in the Catholic Church. Briefly, the Church is the Bride of Christ; the priest is "alter Christus" (another Christ; he acts "in persona Christi" -- in the person of Christ.) Women can't image Christ.

[quote]How does the Catholic church go with contextualisation? The GNT was written in a specific time and place. The church started at a specific time and place. Our culture today is different and there is more equality between men and women. If Christ had come today, he probably would have established a church that looks quite different to the Catholic church or the early church.[/quote]The early Church [i]IS[/i] the Catholic Church. Christ founded a Church and promised to be with it until the end of time. The purpose of Vatican II was to interface the Church with the modern world. The Church teaches now what it taught in the first century, but in modern language. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are fascinating reading. It's the same Church, ever ancient and ever new.

[quote]Are The Didache, the writing of Ignatius of Antioch, and the writing of Augustine part of Tradition?[/quote]"The sayings of the Holy Fathers [such as the Didache, Ignatius, Augustine, et al.] are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer. By means of the same Tradition the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and constantly actualized in the Church. Thus God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the spouse of His beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church -- and through her to the world -- leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness (cf Col 3:16)." Dei Verbum, No. 8, Vatican II

[quote] Please pray to the Lord for me that I may seek first the Kingdom of God and not follow after the selfish desires of my heart.[/quote]I promise you my prayers.

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

[Joolye]

Thanks Katholikos for your replies.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1119410' date='Nov 13 2006, 10:39 PM']
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.
[/quote]

Is God God because the Catholic Church says so?

Of course not. God is God because he is.

Likewise, the Scriptures are God's Word because they are God's Word.

And back to the early comments, the OT obviously pre-dated the Church so you cannot make a sweeping statement that the Church came before the Scriptures.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1123321' date='Nov 18 2006, 04:31 PM']
Is God God because the Catholic Church says so?

Of course not. God is God because he is.

Likewise, the Scriptures are God's Word because they are God's Word.

And back to the early comments, the OT obviously pre-dated the Church so you cannot make a sweeping statement that the Church came before the Scriptures.
[/quote]
So I will make a very specific statement> The New Testament is a product of the Traditions of Catholic Church. THe Bile is a written Tradition of the Church. It exists because the Church chose what books were in it, and ratified the decision at a Church council. The Bible as a whole was put together by the Church, and its authority comes from the Church because the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1123337' date='Nov 18 2006, 04:55 PM']
So I will make a very specific statement> The New Testament is a product of the Traditions of Catholic Church. THe Bile is a written Tradition of the Church. It exists because the Church chose what books were in it, and ratified the decision at a Church council. The Bible as a whole was put together by the Church, and its authority comes from the Church because the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation.
[/quote]

The "authority" of the Bible comes from God and God alone.

Let's look at it this way.

Hypothetically, if we could prove that the Bible was NOT written by God then would it still have authority because the Church put it together?

Likewise, if we could prove that the Catholic Church is bogus, would the Bible no longer be the Word of God (even though it is still written by God).

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1116618' date='Nov 10 2006, 12:59 AM']
Ok, let me attempt to address the issue of the authority of Scripture. I am going to present the view of one theologian, and the material I am using is dated. Note, this is not MY argument, and I will not necessarily have the answers to your objections to this.

The following comes from the book "In understanding be men" by TC Hammond (1968, IVP). It is paraphrased or quoted below.

Hammond says that there are three potential areas of authority. Reason, the Church and Scripture.

Reason is dismissed because of the corruption by sin and the ability of people to make mistakes. He says "Reason is in its proper place not as the maker of doctrine, but as its examiner and assessor" (p39).

He says that the church has 'a place of authority' but it is subservient to the Word. He says that the Word of God existed in its spoken form initially before it was written, and it was the Word of God that brought the church into being, so the NT existed before the church. Because the church did not precede the Scriptures it does not have a prior authority. He also says that the belief that tradition can be added to Scripture is false and uses the example that Jesus denounced the traditions that the Jewish leaders had put in place.

He says that the Bible is the supreme authority. Reason and the church are secondary authorities and should always be in line with Scripture. "Their words can never be finally binding unless they can be proved by warrant of Holy Scripture" (p40).

He lists many Bible verses. I have looked a few of them up am only listing some of them. He lists these under the heading of the Authority and Importance of the Scriptures.

Is 8:19-20
Matt 4:1-11
Matt 12:1-5
Mark 7:1-13
Mark 12:35-37, I say go through to 39
Acts 15:14-19
2 Tim 3:14-16

Edit to add: This is only a very brief case for the authority of Scripture. The book only devoted a small amount of text to this topic. Obviously if I researched further, there would be a lot more information out there.
[/quote]

[quote]Thanks Katholikos for your replies.[/quote]

You are very welcome, Joolye.

I quoted your first post again so I could ask you, have we answered all your questions fully?

Catholics do not share the pessimistic Protestant view of reason. The Church teaches that man is wounded by Original Sin, and as a consequence is plagued with concupiscence -- a desire and an inclination to sin -- but his reason and will are intact. He remains only "a little lower than the angels." The "reformers" concluded that man, including his reason and will, are totally depraved. This view originated in the 16th century; it was not taught by the Apostles.

The error (in the Catholic view) of making the Scriptures the supreme authority is to ignore or deny the role the Church played as the agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT, compiling the Scriptures, and in declaring them "the inspired Word of God." The NT writings required an authority to write, collect, canonize, and name them. The Scriptures also require an interpreter, as does Sacred Tradition; the rightful interpreter is the Church, the guardian and teacher of the Scriptures and Tradition.

You may have missed my question. What does Hammond mean in his book by the term, "the church"?

You mentioned that Hammond's argument is not yours. Do you have a different argument you would like us to address?

Thanks, and thanks for your questions, Jay

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

edited to correct a typo

Edited November 18, 2006 by Katholikos

[HS_Dad]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1123345' date='Nov 18 2006, 04:29 PM']

....

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?
[/quote]

I think this is the key question. Because of the deep view of sacramentality by Catholics, their deep respect for tradition, the Church, etc.... In debate, they often lose focus that all comes from God including all authority and power. It's important for Catholics in debate to not make everything into an "either-or" the Church or nothing.... But a "both-and" God first and through his gift of his son and the Holy Spirit a desire for Christian unity and respect for Christ's desire that all may be one... The argument imho should be one of come and join as one body throughout history and throughout cultures around the world... An important question is what can Catholics in humility learn and incorporate from their separated brethren? The global situation today in a post-Christian Europe and an increasingly secularist America is in many ways more similar to the Roman Empire of early apostolic times than Christendom of the 1300's...... Catholics need to understand that their separated brethren, through a great love of Scripture and growth in their own traditions of reflecting upon Scripture as it relates to the individual and metanoia have much to teach Catholics about how to be Christian in the world today... Anyways, that's IMHO.... Ut Unum Sint!

[Katholikos]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1123345' date='Nov 18 2006, 05:29 PM']
The "authority" of the Bible comes from God and God alone.[/quote]As a Catholic, I agree with you. But God didn't tell me that. I learned it from God's mouthpiece, the Catholic Church. The Church teaches us what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God) and what is Scripture (the writings that belong in the Bible). God has no voice, no hands. Christ's Church was the agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT and forming the Bible and speaks for Him.

Many organizations that bear the name "Christian" have different collections of writings they call "the Bible." Which is the "real" Bible?

The contents of the original Bible were selected by the Catholic Church when she was nearly 400 years old. Other ppl have since subtracted from the Bible or added to it.

[quote]Let's look at it this way.

Hypothetically, if we could prove that the Bible was NOT written by God then would it still have authority because the Church put it together?[/quote]There is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God. One can accept the authority of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ for the salvation of the world, that God is the primary, ultimate author, or one can rely on his own opinion. Different opinions have resulted in different "Bibles."

[quote]Likewise, if we could prove that the Catholic Church is bogus, would the Bible no longer be the Word of God (even though it is still written by God).[/quote]This is a hypothetical Q that has no merit. The Church is considerably older than the Bible. No Church, no Bible.

[quote]OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?[/quote]The authority of the Catholic Church comes from its founder, Jesus Christ, who gave it His own authority: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me ..." Luke 10:16 And He gave Church leaders His power to make decisions: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" Mt 16:18-19.

God's revelation through Jesus Christ to the Apostles to His Church consists of both Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. See the earlier posts in this thread.

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

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1123394' date='Nov 18 2006, 08:13 PM']
As a Catholic, I agree with you. But God didn't tell me that. I learned it from God's mouthpiece, the Catholic Church. The Church teaches us what Scripture is (the inspired Word of God) and what is Scripture (the writings that belong in the Bible). God has no voice, no hands. Christ's Church was the agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the NT and forming the Bible and speaks for Him.

Many organizations that bear the name "Christian" have different collections of writings they call "the Bible." Which is the "real" Bible?

The contents of the original Bible were selected by the Catholic Church when she was nearly 400 years old. Other ppl have since subtracted from the Bible or added to it.

There is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God. One can accept the authority of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ for the salvation of the world, that God is the primary, ultimate author, or one can rely on his own opinion. Different opinions have resulted in different "Bibles."

This is a hypothetical Q that has no merit. The Church is considerably older than the Bible. No Church, no Bible.

The authority of the Catholic Church comes from its founder, Jesus Christ, who gave it His own authority: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me ..." Luke 10:16 And He gave Church leaders His power to make decisions: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" Mt 16:18-19.

God's revelation through Jesus Christ to the Apostles to His Church consists of both Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. See the earlier posts in this thread.

=======================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!
[/quote]

Your answer makes no sense.

If there is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God then there is likewise no "proof" that the Catholic Church was established by God.

And you can't give scripture to support the authority of the Church when the Church was necessary according to you to "select" the scriptures of the Bible. I there is no "proof" that the Bible was written by God, then you can't use scripture verses to establish the authority of the Church - it's cirular reasoning.

What is your proof that Jesus established the Catholic Church? Because that's what the Catholic Church told you? If so, I have a nice bridge to sell you...

All authority comes from God. "God has no voice, no hands." - Huh? Try reading the OT - God spoke to Moses. God made the "handwriting" on the wall. Even Jesus "spoke" to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Can't you see what you are doing? You are making God dependent on man.

Do you think that the God who spoke creation into existence couldn't have written the Bible without men? Do you think he couldn't have put the Bible together without the Church?

The Church did not come before God. The Church did not come before the OT. The Church did not write the Scriptures - God did.

All the Church did was "recognize" what was of God. Any writings in contention at the gathering of the canon were either "God's Word" or not. The chosen writings did not become God's Word once the Church pronounced it as such.

You seem to miss the big point. If there is no God, there is no Church and no Bible. Without the Church, God still is, was, and is to come.

Please, take care not to elevate men to a position to which they are not worthy. ALL authority comes from God. You may believe that God's authority is filtered through men, but that only makes them a fiddler, not creators.

[SJP]

SolaScriptura said:
"All the Church did was "recognize" what was of God. Any writings in contention at the gathering of the canon were either "God's Word" or not. The chosen writings did not become God's Word once the Church pronounced it as such."

All the Church did was "recognize" what was of God???

You make it sound as if that's just some sort of common day occurrence! You're right the Church did recognize what was of God. How was the Church able to recognize what was of God? You already know the answer to that question, the Church is led by the Holy Spirit. It just so happens that the Catholic Church that made scripture "official" in 397AD is the same Catholic Church that exists today.

We still rely on the Holy Spirit, not our own individual interpretation of scripture. For if we did, it would be legitimate to say:

SolaScriptura:
"Can't you see what you are doing? You are making God dependent on man."

Edited November 19, 2006 by SJP