A brief and friendly correction to George Will

I don’t understand this. Were there ‘Scriptures’ in the sense of the New Testament we know today, or does the Acts passage you cite refer to the Old Testament? I thought it took a century or two after Jesus’ death before what we know as the Bible was actually written and referred to as Scripture. I thought the transmission of Jesus’ gospel, life and miracles was by word of mouth until what we know as the New Testament was actually written. Can you clarify this for me?

Humble Access, they were certainly the OT scriptures. Not sure what your point is. The principle in that text is that scripture, even the OT scripture, holds primacy. The teaching of the apostle was authenticated by the Bereans by testing it in light of what God had already revealed. They were unready to accept any teaching that contradicted what had already been delivered by the Prophets. Once it was tested and shown to be true, they recieved it.

And we can apply that principle today just as readily.  Jesus told his apostles that they would be led into all truth and that the Spirit would call to mind the teachings of Jesus and bring new teachings to light though him. That promise to the apostles was and is fulfilled in the NT. Peter refers to Paul’s writings as “scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15 and Paul equates the teaching of the apostles with that of the OT prophets in Ephesians 2..the NT is, then, as authoritative as the OT and can be used to test any doctrine.

Rather he shattered the idea that the Church and the Bible possess equal weight and authority.

Technically, I don’t think Rome has ever formally made this claim.  It denies it possesses a charism of revelation.  Tradition is supposed to trace back to the unwritten statements of either Jesus or the Apostles.  Rome is in formal submission to Scripture.  Functionally however Rome claims authority superior to Scripture for only Rome can:

1. Define the content of Scripture.

2. Interpret what Scripture means.

Any lawyer will tell you.  Control is more important than ownership.  The church becomes the norm that norms all norms.  Any difficulties with Scripture can be resolved by appeal to Sacred Tradition - the contents of which only the church knows and understands.  So although the RCC may be in formal submission, in fact it has placed itself above Scripture - beyond the reach of its correction.  Catholics cannot do exegesis, for the prior dogmatic pronouncements of Rome must always reign supreme. 

Luther placed the Church under the Scripture.  Rome placed the Scripture under the church.  It’s perhaps better to state that Luther inverted the relationship between church and Scripture rather than say he shattered their equivalence.

carl

Hi Carl, I’ll have to look it up, but I believe Trent said that the Church and the Bible are two distinct and infallible sources of the One revelation of God…lemme look

Thanks, Matt. My understanding of the weight that the RCC gives to Tradition has to do with the centuries before the New Testament was written; that sola Scriptura wouldn’t have applied to the earliest Christians because the whole Scripture (including the New Testament) wasn’t yet available. Therefore certain and beliefs ascribed to Tradition are valid because they originated before the writing of the New Testament.

Carl,

this is from the catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#II

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.“40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.“42

“And [Holy] 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.“43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.“44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] 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. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.“46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 “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. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.“47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.“48

matt said

“It is trust in the truth God’s Word—that the bible supersedes the teaching of the church—that makes dissent from and opposition to the teachings of the Episcopal Church with regard to homosexual behavior and the uniqueness of Christ not only important, but a necessary and essential Christian duty. We must do so, not only to remain faithful to Christ and his gospel, but to help clarify, by the grace of God, the truth about these matters for those who are being decieved and led into the darkness, further from Christ

Fr. Matt, I thought you were arguing that the revisionists were bound to advocate their position, and that it had validity.  That couldn’t be it.

not sure how you got that Paul. It is because of the witness of scripture that we oppose the blatant violation of it by TEC

Matt+, Carl, HumbleAcccess and Paul,

This is the kind of rich discourse which brings me back to SF several times each day and which I find such a blessing.

Thanks and God bless

Fr Matt - couldn’t the revisionists argue that their reading of scripture supports their position, and therefore they are right? 

They are saying that the tradition of the homophobic paternalistic church is not supported by scripture, and therefore should be opposed. 

What do you do in cases of cases where there is disagreement over the scripture?  Who arbitrates?

Carl & Matt+

Actually, I think both of you accurately describes two schools of thought in Roman Catholicism. Carl gave the more contemporary “evangelical RC” (self title by Peter Kreeft), where Matt+ gave the Traditionalist understanding (of which I’d classify JP II, wrote wrote the CCC). I think Benedict XVI maybe more like Kreeft by several hints, but he’s a Big Tent guy so certainly will mind what he says not to push away even the Ultra-Traditionalist.

Jackie posted this article of RC bishops discussing Scripture, I think both schools are represented (as well as a possible more liberal one).

Oddly, you both may be correct depending on who is talking and the time period.

“Fr Matt - couldn’t the revisionists argue that their reading of scripture supports their position, and therefore they are right?”

Well yes, and someone could argue that their reading of the Catechism teaches that Jesus was really a space alien or that 1 + 1 = 3.

The question is whether the interpretation of the data holds up to the data itself.

Certainly the Church has a role in adjudicating such matters but whether she does so or not, it does not change the fact of the error. 1+1 does not equal 3 whether the church weighs in on the matter or not. The Church does not govern interpretation, she guards the truth.

[11] Hosea6:6

Actually, I think both of you accurately describes two schools of thought in Roman Catholicism.

What!?  The infallible authority of the magisterium has not brought about uniformity of doctrine?  But isn’t this the whole point of having an ultimate authority - to arbitrate between differences?  How can this be? 

Seriously, though.  I don’t know of any RC who has claimed the RCC possesses a charism of revelation.  There are two sources of revelation in the RCC - Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Rome claims to be in submission to both.  It also claims to be the sole intermediary by which these two sources of revelation can be understood.  Rome listens to the Holy Spirit via Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  The people listen to Rome.  That is the natural order of things according to the magisterium.  This is what I thought to express in #3, and I think Matt’s post of the CCC is in agreement with what I intended to convey.  Rome is formally in submission to revelation, but functionally superior to it.

This is what Luther repudiated.  He stated that an ordinary man had the authority to judge the pronouncements of the church on the authority of Scripture.  Revolutionary stuff for a church that maintained control by sacramentally controlling access to heaven.

carl

I do take HUGE exception to George Will’s “shattered Christendom,” but I’ll leave it at that.

In some ways he is correct in the comparison +Duncan to Martin Luther. I think it is in error to lift things out of context and what Martin Luther was reacting towards was probably the lowest point in Roman Catholic history. This is in the secular pope era and starting with the last (crowning in depravity of the Borgia line) with Alexander VI, then shortly Julius II, the the warrior pope” or il papa terribile, Leo X who was the indulgence guy, Clement VII who playing in politics ended up getting Rome sack by Pompeo Colonna. The only ‘good ones’ reigned a few years or less, thus we really don’t know if they were really any better or if they were not given enough time to do any damage.

So the Roman Church was in a complete mess. Martin Luther turned to the only reliable Guide to his feet around, the Scriptures. Today, KJS is as unfaithful to her office as these characters I listed above. So in that way, George Will has hit the nail on squarely on the head, for the only cure is returning to Scripture.

The lesson Matt+ is pointing seems to be the same, Scripture is the only reliable guide (I actually think Church, Tradition and Scripture are suppose to work in harmony together, just Scripture is the one element that is unchanging and without our fallen nature to mess everything up).

Carl,

I read what you said in #3 to be Kreefts position to the matter:

“First, it separates Church and Scripture. But they are one. They are not two rival horses in the authority race, but one rider (the Church) on one horse (Scripture).” He adds, “We are not taught by a teacher without a book or by a book without a teacher, but by one teacher, the Church, with one book, Scripture.” [Here]

Which I find different than the usual “here are two sources of revelation in the RCC - Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”

Often both ends up in very similar places, but tend to take on a very different intellectual properties in the discourse —which I thought is what you were saying with “Rome is in formal submission to Scripture.  Functionally however Rome claims authority superior to Scripture for only Rome can:

1. Define the content of Scripture.
2. Interpret what Scripture means. “

Apologies if I misread you.

It did happen to hit upon a recent odd school of thought I have encountered.

He stated that an ordinary man had the authority to judge the pronouncements of the church on the authority of Scripture.

Which ordinary men have used to marvelous effect.

[16] Ed the Roman

Which ordinary men have used to marvelous effect.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.    Without such authority I would be required to believe all kinds of doctrinal nonsense propagated by the RCC.  As it stands, I am free of such a burden.  The traditions of Rome hold no sway over me.

carl

Re #13:

Carl, I’d claim that any church that has the sacrament of absolution does what you describe as
“[maintaining] control by sacramentally controlling access to heaven.”

The power of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19) means not less than that the Apostles and their successors have the authority to absolve sins.  That absolution either does something or it doesn’t.  If it doesn’t, then what was Christ going on about here?  And if it does, then denying it results in the sins ‘being retained.’

Or did you mean something else?

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

I believe a reading of Pope Paul VI’s “Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum” would be helpful in understanding Catholic teaching on the matter of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.  The document can be found at the Vatican Website.  http://tinyurl.com/3ecxu

Great discussion guys.  Thanks for allowing me to sit quitely in the corner and observe, listen and learn.  God bless!