Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:38 pm
[user account removed]
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
Actually, there is nothing in this definition and description of “sola Scriptura” which, in principle, is contrary to Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching also firmly affirms that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17, etc.), and, as such, the Scriptures are to be relied upon above any other supposed authority which contradicts Scripture. However, there is nothing in this definition which, to me, warrants the use of the adjective, “sola”. For, this definition seems to me to leave open the possibility of there being another source of Divine Revelation (eg., Apostolic Oral Tradition) and an interpretative authority of all Divine Revelation (eg., Magisterium/Teaching Authority of the Church). For, it is possible to have such authoritative sources of Divine Revelation (or interpretation of Divine Revelation) which would, in no way, contradict Sacred Scripture (but, to the contrary, would shed greater light on the very meaning of Scripture). This, indeed, is the Catholic position.Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the scriptures, as the inspired word of God, are more trustworthy and authoritative than are the words of any man or men. Traditions of men, reasonings of men, and sentiments of men all stand corrected by the higher authority of the scriptures.
Sola Scriptura does not affirm that the scriptures are the only source of theological information, but that they trump all others, where there may be disagreement between them and any other pretended authority.
Certainly, the Holy Scriptures speak to each and every one of us (the ancient Catholic tradition of "Lectio Divina", the "Divine Reading (of the Scriptures)", is based on this belief that, in the Word of God, God is able to speak to each and every one of us and change our hearts in doing so). And, so, I suppose that, in theory, it would be possible, given enough grace (as well as knowledge and time for research), that each of us could discern for ourselves which Books are Inspired or not (for, certainly, God can, and does, give us moments of grace and light where we are able to clearly recognize certain of the Scriptures as being true and Inspired by Him). That said, I think it is an obvious fact that this theoretical possibility is a practical impossibility; for, it is practically impossible for any single one of us to be able to discern, on our own, exactly which Books are Inspired and which are not. Sure, we MIGHT be able to discern SOME Books right on our own, without the decision or help of others in the Christian community…but, certainly, barring what would have to be considered a true miracle of grace (and possibly of nature), there is no practical way we would be able to discern PRECISELY which Books belong in the Bible. For, think of what that would entail: It would entail going through all of the possible world literature that could possibly be Divinely Inspired and then, discerning, on our own, whether or not it actually is Inspired or not. Has there really been any one of us who has done, or even could do, such a thing (AND THEN, on top of that, find that “our Bible” which we discerned to contain all of the Divinely Inspired writings of the world perfectly matched what the rest of the Christian community considers to be “The Bible”)? This would mean combing through not only all of the apocrypha that is clearly silly, but, also, other works that seem very good and, actually, have nothing that is obviously wrong in them, but, nevertheless, were not Divinely Inspired (in the strict sense of that term) and are not considered by the Christian community to be such; eg., the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, or other Church Fathers from the Apostolic Age (and, for that matter, would we not have to consider good Christian writings from after the Apostolic age—for, if we are to decide this question of the Canon of Scripture on our own, why would we not consider the possibility that there could be some Divinely Inspired writings from beyond the Apostolic Age? Would we not have to consider the possibility that some works from Augustine, or Jerome, or others were Divinely Inspired? And this is not even to mention all the Hebrew literature from before the Incarnation...) Is it reasonable for any one of us to think that he can, on his own, discern which Books belong in the Bible when, in fact, prior to the Church's final decision on the Canon of the Bible, the question as to exactly which writings were Divinely Inspired was a question that was intensely debated by many men who were, almost certainly, much more wise, learned, and holier than any one of us? Has it not, rather, been the case that, in practice, each and every one of us has depended on some tradition within our respective Christian community to tell us exactly what the Bible even is?? This is, I firmly believe, certainly the case…thus, showing, that, in addition to relying on the Scriptures themselves for knowledge about God, we, at the very least, need to rely on some tradition to tell us what the Scriptures even are, what Books make up the Divine Scriptures. All this, thus, leads us to search for an authentic Tradition, together with an authentic Church Authority, that is able to tell us which Books belong in the Bible and which do not. I do not see how we can deny this practical fact of the Christian life…Deciding what is inspired and what is not, is something I think God's guidance should do for us each personally, and not other men. God does institute shepherds to guide people, but all to guide back to that One Shepherd of the sheep. We are told to trust in the power of God and not the sophistry of man. Scriptures must be fully self-authenticating to our hearts, without a pastor, bishop, or pope to tell us so—"I know my sheep and they follow me."
To say that the inspired Book finds us is true-- provided that we rely on the usual workings of God's Providence, which has provided us with a Christian community (and a Church) to lead us to the inspired Book. Think of your own experience. How did the "inspired Books find you"? Was it not because some Christian told you, "Hey, check out these Books-- they're inspired by God!" And, then you read them and said, "Hey, yea, you're right!" Without that someone telling you about the Bible and its Books, how else would the Bible "have found" you"?I think you make a logical fallacy when you say we must read every book ever written to find something inspired. In a way, the book finds us, we don't find the book.
I agree that you should not assume that men wiser and holier than you have believed the Koran is inspired; but, why is that a fair statement to make? Is it not because the Koran is not held to be inspired by Christians (and we trust Christians in their judgment of what is inspired or not more than we trust Muslims)? In our deciding that the Koran is not inspired, does every Christian really sit down, read the Koran, and then decide that it is not inspired? For most Christians, that is not the case....Rather, do not most Christians simply rely on the judgment of the Christian community in which he is (and that community's tradition as to what is inspired), and then make the judgment that a Book such as the Koran is not inspired? I know that was how I made the judgment that the Koran is not inspired. And this is the case even if, since being told that the Koran is not inspired, I have read it and seen that it is contrary to the Faith-- but, even if I had NOT read the Koran, I still would not believe it is inspired; but, according to your principle that you cannot simply trust the judgment of other men, one would HAVE to read the Koran and then make a judgment for himself as to whether or not it is inspired (and have you yourself actually done this? By your principle, you would HAVE to do this, whereas I am saying you do NOT have to do this, for you can simply rely on the judgment of the sound Christian traditions that have been handed on to you which declare to you that the Koran, and other such books, are not inspired.)Obviously a book like the Koran has established itself as a holy book for millions of people. Should I assume therefore that men "smarter and holier" than myself decided this? No, of course not.
Absolutely true! We need the supernatural gift/grace of faith in order to believe in the true religion (else all we have is, at most, opinion). And the grace of faith leads us, first of all, to believe in God, and to believe in His Son, Jesus Christ...and to believe in the judgments of the Church that Christ founded, which is the Catholic Church (and, among the teachings of the Catholic Church we find the teaching that the Holy Scriptures are the Inspired Word of God!)If we don't attribute some kind of supernatural help or aide to our religious beliefs, what kind of religion do we have? Just something man-made.
robbyyoung wrote:Let me ask a question. When the New Heavens and Earth arrive on the scene, what happens to this 1st Century set-up of The Church hierarchy?
Would this hierarchy be void, unnecessary, fulfilled once "The Perfect" has come?
Hi BrotherAlan,BrotherAlan wrote:Hello, RobbyYoung--
That's a good question...I'd have to think about (and research that) some more...but, my initial "stab" at an answer is that, "Yes", in the new age to come, i.e., the age of heaven, the current hierarchical structure of the Church will be fulfilled and no longer necessary...
Hi BrotherAlan,BrotherAlan wrote:Dear robbyyoung,
Blessings to you and your family this new year!
Without going into all of the details (at least not right now) of the ideas you have proposed here, I will, sticking right now on the issue of the Canon of Scripture (which issue is also being discussed with dizerner right now), address the fact that at least some of the Scriptures you have quoted (eg., Revelation) were given after 70 AD (the proposed date in which the need for a Church hierarchy ended), and all of them were not officially recognized as canonical by the Christian community (i.e., the Church) until much after 70 AD (and, as you probably know, the canonicity of Revelation was something very much debated for a long time within the Church). However, based on the decisions of the hierarchy of this Christian community (i.e., Church), you are regarding these Scriptures as being canonical. Thus, it seems to me that your position is faced with the dilemma of relying upon the supposed teaching of these Scriptures stating there is no need for a hierarchy, and, at the same time, relying upon that same hierarchy to tell you that these Scriptures are canonical/inspired. How do you respond to this seeming dilemma? Again, this does not entirely directly address the apparent issues that you raise, but it is something, for now, to at least think about...
God bless!
In Christ,
BrotherAlan