Does scripture interpret scripture?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I will leave my opinion of what Paul is saying out here, but if there is this Scred Tradition, we ask to be shown it.

You see it in the life of the Church, in our liturgies, in our prayers, in our Catechism. It is the common teaching, life and worship of the CC.

Show us the first and second century Christians who preserved papal infallibility, who preserved the medieval understanding of purgatory, of Mary as co redemptrix and mediatrix..

That has been presented to you in other threads, Lincs, but you do not see it.

Are these actually traditions, or later developments, unheard of by the Apostles? Genuine questions, no aggression inteneded PR

No aggression interpreted.

And yes, some of these were later developments, but none were "unheard of by the Apostles".

Doctrinal development is, er, a "hermeneutic principle" that has been part of Catholicism from the very beginning.

Indeed it does, I don't debate apostolic Traditon, I simply don't think that the catholic understanding of tradition is all tht clear... Partim partim, which you seem to endorse... Material sufficiency?

Yes, I've already told you here that Catholicism proclaims the material sufficiency of Scripture.

And I've also already told you that it is a false dichotomy to try to force a Catholic into the material sufficiency vs partim partim camp, because "Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione". We have both channels of God's revelation, so we need not choose between one or the other.

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Guanophore,

I'm glad we agree scripture must be looked at in light of other scripture. We do disagree on the whole infallibility bit though..

Grist for another thread. There are a lot of them here, if you should desire to pursue the topic.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

If I have been unclear, I apologise. I see Scripture as the written form of sacred Traditon, I debate whether there exists essential teachings outside of the written form of sacred traditon.

No, you were clear. I said you were debating/denying Apostolic Tradition because you have reduced the Apostolic teaching to what is written, and reject most of what is not in Scripture.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Depends on the Traditon... Divided from sacred Apostlic Traditon not found in scripture, or man made traditions?

Your premise is that all the Apostolic Tradition is found in scripture. It is a false premise.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Your assumption here is that modern "Traditons" in the CC are actually apostolic ones.

I make that assumption only about those with the capital T. In that sense there is no such thing as a "modern" Tradition (with the capital T) since all the Sacred Tradition came from the Apostles. The small t ones are not necessarily, in fact, I would say most often are not.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

But yes you're quite right, the scripture interpreting scripture idea does require a person, but again, it's really a way Protestants approach scripture, we look for the clear to help discern the unclear..

Yes, this is a very Catholic principle. The main difference is that Catholics believe Jesus kept His promise when He promised to lead the Church into "all Truth". Therefore, we find clarity by understanding the Scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teaching preserved in the Church.

[quote=Lincoln7;9318244] Indeed Luthers bible also contained them.. [/qupte]

Because all the bibles contained them. There was no other bible.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

My point is I see a distinction between the apocrypha and the scriptures, following Catejan, Jerome and the reformers.

Yes, Catholics also see a distinction between the apocrypha and the Scriptures. No apocrypha have ever been part of the canon.

It is curious that Protestants follow the canon of the Jews that rejected Jesus, while Catholics follow the canon used by the Apostles.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

So we agree that Luther stood quite happily in the scholarly world of his day, he didn't change what everyone else agreed on in terms of canon?

Luther was a scholar, indeed, but he certainly did mount attacks on the canon in many ways. If it were not for Melanchton and others, he would have eliminated NT books as well, especially James, which he called an "epistle of straw".

Instead of going back to Luther, what about going back to the early councils that established the Christian canon?

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

And papal infallibility in all of this, as a case study?

Definitely grist for another thread. If more of the Popes had read the Scriptures daily and interpreted them in the light of other scriptures, I dare say the Reformation may never have happened!

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

We disagree on successors... For me it's more about following apostolic teaching than standing in an apparent line to them.

The two are not separated. Following their teaching is standing in line with them. This is the Church founded by Christ.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Guanophore,

No sarcasm or aggression intended, if any appears in my posts.

Kind regards

Lincs,

Nor do I. Sometimes I have attitudes about the Reformers, and they leak out. When I have studied the lives of Luther and Calvin, I fail to understand why others espouse the ideas they promulgated. I find your posts to be respectful and I appreciate the dialogue.

[Lincoln7]

PRmerger,

You see it in the life of the Church, in our liturgies, in our prayers, in our Catechism. It is the common teaching, life and worship of the CC.

Hmm. I get what you're saying, but it seems a bit hard to pin down..

That has been presented to you in other threads, Lincs, but you do not see it.

I don't think either can find support in the early church no.. If they are Apostlic, why no explicit mention?

And yes, some of these were later developments, but none were "unheard of by the Apostles".

The Traditions Paul indicates in 2 Thessolonians he tells to "stand firm" in, to "hold" too; the Traditons Paul preaches were delivered in their entirity, no need to develop them.

Doctrinal development is, er, a "hermeneutic principle" that has been part of Catholicism from the very beginning.

Vatican 1: For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] . - I don't see an indication of a knowledge of development here, yet the primacy of authority in Rome is now seen as such a development.

Yes, I've already told you here that Catholicism proclaims the material sufficiency of Scripture.

Has it always seen it this way?

I fear this thread is now a SS one... I may pull out and save us all the endless posts

Kind regards PR

Lincs.

[Lincoln7]

Guanophre,

No, you were clear. I said you were debating/denying Apostolic Tradition because you have reduced the Apostolic teaching to what is written, and reject most of what is not in Scripture.

Your premise is that all the Apostolic Tradition is found in scripture. It is a false premise.

I have just been told that it is all materially in scripture? This seems to say it is not?

It is curious that Protestants follow the canon of the Jews that rejected Jesus, while Catholics follow the canon used by the Apostles.

This particular discussion tends not to end!

Luther was a scholar, indeed, but he certainly did mount attacks on the canon in many ways. If it were not for Melanchton and others, he would have eliminated NT books as well, especially James, which he called an "epistle of straw".

There is a pretty fair treatment of Luthers comment here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...search?q=Straw

Instead of going back to Luther, what about going back to the early councils that established the Christian canon?

Well my friend, I should be alarmed, like a raw scholar, as if I find these books as canonical in doctors or councils, Cajetan tells me not to worry, as they are all subject to the correction of Jerome..

Nor do I. Sometimes I have attitudes about the Reformers, and they leak out. When I have studied the lives of Luther and Calvin, I fail to understand why others espouse the ideas they promulgated. I find your posts to be respectful and I appreciate the dialogue.

Genuine convictions they are right And yours.

Regards

Lincs.

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hmm. I get what you're saying, but it seems a bit hard to pin down..

My question would be, why do you want to "pin down" a world view? Sacred Tradition is a way of thinking, a way of being in the world. How does one "pin down" something like that? Jesus said "I am the Way". Can you "pin" that down?

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I don't think either can find support in the early church no.. If they are Apostlic, why no explicit mention?

Are you referring to the Liturgy and the catechism? If so, what makes you think they are not found in the early church? They have been uninterruped! If you are referring to something else here, please clarify.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

The Traditions Paul indicates in 2 Thessolonians he tells to "stand firm" in, to "hold" too; the Traditons Paul preaches were delivered in their entirity, no need to develop them.

Yes, there has always been a need to develop the doctrine of the faith. We see the first development at the Council in Jerusalem, where the Church decided that Gentiles did not need to follow the laws of Moses, but did impose restrictions on mixed communities of Gentiles and Jews to restore order and unity. We see doctrinal development in the use of the word "Trinity" to describe the beliefs of the Apostles, a word they never used, but concept they taught. We see the development of the term "hypostatic union" created to combat heresies, also not used by the Apostles, but a concept believed and taught by them. The Mass is also part of these Traditions of which Paul writes in 2 Thess.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Vatican 1: For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] . - I don't see an indication of a knowledge of development here, yet the primacy of authority in Rome is now seen as such a development.

This is pretty far off the topic. Maybe a new thread? A development refers to how an Apostolic Teaching is applied. It is not a new doctrine.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Has it always seen it this way?

Yes, of course. This is part of Sacred Tradition.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I fear this thread is now a SS one... I may pull out and save us all the endless posts

It seems you are much more in need of a thread about doctrinal development.

Suffice to say the idea that scripture interprets itself is not part of the Teaching of the Apostles, and neither is SS.

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Guanophre,

I have just been told that it is all materially in scripture? This seems to say it is not?

You are correct. It is scripture that directsus to the Church. They were never intended to be separated from one another.

This particular discussion tends not to end![/quote]

Probably not until He comes again!

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Well my friend, I should be alarmed, like a raw scholar, as if I find these books as canonical in doctors or councils, Cajetan tells me not to worry, as they are all subject to the correction of Jerome..

So do you subject yourself to the direction of Cajeton in all things? Or do you just pick certain expressions of his that support your preferred notions? Have you read Augustine on the canon?

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Genuine convictions they are right And yours.

Indeed. This is the most evident proof that SS misses the mark. When so many sincere people can all be led by the HS to opposite conclusions, something has to be wrong with the foundation.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hmm. I get what you're saying, but it seems a bit hard to pin down.

I don't see why something revealed by God must be easy to pin down.

Do you have a Bible verse supporting your paradigm that things that come from God's mouth ought to be easy to pin down, or is this another "hermeneutic principle"?

I don't think either can find support in the early church no.. If they are Apostlic, why no explicit mention?

Perhaps because they are implicitly mentioned?

The Traditions Paul indicates in 2 Thessolonians he tells to "stand firm" in, to "hold" too; the Traditons Paul preaches were delivered in their entirity, no need to develop them.

And yet you subscribe to the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of the NT, and that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle--all things which were not proclaimed until centuries after St. Paul's letter to the Thessalonians.

You must admit, Lincs, that you, too subscribe to the Catholic hermeneutic of development of doctrine, no?

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

=You must admit, Lincs, that you, too subscribe to the Catholic hermeneutic of development of doctrine, no?

I have sure been missing you PR! I think I was having withdrawal.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Vatican 1: For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] . -

Amen!

I don't see an indication of a knowledge of development here, yet the primacy of authority in Rome is now seen as such a development.

ALL of our understandings of the Word of God are "doctrinal development", Lincs. That is, our understanding of the Trinity has evolved and been refining over the past 2000 years and we understand it with more clarity than those in, say, the 5th century...our theological giants today stand on the shoulders of the Catholic Church's theological giants of yesterday.

BUT!! This is NOT to say that the entire deposit of faith was not present from the first days of the Church.

Or, to put it without the double negative: the entire Catholic faith was whole and complete before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Has it always seen it this way?

That we believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture?

No, it couldn't be. Because Scripture wasn't always materially sufficient, was it? How was it that the early Christians spread the Good News without a bible to hand out?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by guanophore

I have sure been missing you PR! I think I was having withdrawal.

Oh, p-shaw!

You were gone wayyyy too long. Never do that again!!

[Lincoln7]

I will simply post this link: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...ent-rests.html regarding doctrinal development.

I think the thread has gone way off Phyllos topic, I will leave with that!

Kind regards

Lincs.

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Oh, p-shaw!

You were gone wayyyy too long. Never do that again!!

Believe me, I intend to take only ONE set of comprehensive exams, and write ONE dissertation.

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I will simply post this link: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...ent-rests.html regarding doctrinal development.

I think the thread has gone way off Phyllos topic, I will leave with that!

Kind regards

Lincs.

Yes, I hope the OP got what was wanted?

Here is a flaw in that article:

"There is another kind of development, however, which I will call “Development 2.” Development 2 is genuinely new development that is not simply the necessary articulation of what is said explicitly in the Scriptures."

Doctrinal development has never been restricted to an articulation of what is "explicity in Scripture". If it were, we would not HAVE the scriptures, since the canon itself is a doctrinal development. The Scriptures contain no explicit list of books that should be included in the canon. On the contrary, if these things were explicity stated in Scripture, doctrinal development would not be necessary! Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

Classic examples of Development 2 would include the differences between the doctrine of the theotokos and the dogmas of the immaculate conception or the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the former, Marian dogma is not actually saying something about Mary, but rather something about Christ. If Jesus Christ is truly God, and Mary is his mother, then Mary is truly the Mother of God (theotokos). She gives birth, however, to Jesus’ humanity, not his eternal person, which has always existed and is generated eternally by the Father. The doctrine of the theotokos is a necessary implication of the incarnation of God in Christ, which is clearly taught in the New Testament.

If it were clear, it would not have required a dogma. Those of us who have accepted the doctrinal development find it clear, but it is because we approach the scriptures through the lens of that faith (Sacred Tradition). Others who were reading the scriptures interpreted them differently, just as they do today. It is clear in reading about the Arian and Gnostic heresies that they used the scriptures to prove their positions as well.

However, the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption are not taught in Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. They are entirely new developments.

This is a false conclusion, based upon a false premise.

The same would be true, of course, for the doctrine of the papacy. The New Testament says much about the role of Simon Peter as a leader of the apostles. It does not say anything explicit, however, about the bishop of Rome being the successor to Peter.

Since the bishops, the successors to the Apostles, predated the New Testament, why would anyone expect their existence to be dependent upon it?

The Eastern fathers, e.g., Cyprian, interpret the Petrine passages that Rome has applied to the papacy as applying to all bishops.

Yes, all bishops are successors to the Apostles. Peter had certain gifts and responsibilities that the others did not, but all the apostolic lines of succession from Apostles are valid in the same way. Antioch has a line of consecrated Bishops from Peter that is older than Rome.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I will simply post this link: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...ent-rests.html regarding doctrinal development.

I think the thread has gone way off Phyllos topic, I will leave with that!

Kind regards

Lincs.

Oh, topic, schmopic! I leave it to the mods to rein us in when they feel it necessary. A certain amount of tributaries and diversions are always part of a thread, and tolerated because, if they didn't, all threads would end after about the 2nd page, and this forum would be inundated with new threads.

[Phyllo]

[quote=guanophore;9318561]Yes, I hope the OP got what was wanted?

Yes I did. Thank you very much And much more. I have been reading along and learned many things from posters much more learned than I. I never realized that this thread would explode to what it did. I, for one, found it interesting and educational.

Thanks a bunch!!

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by guanophore

Believe me, I intend to take only ONE set of comprehensive exams, and write ONE dissertation.

Well, if you had to balance time on the CAFs vs time working on your dissertation, I suppose no one would blame you for choosing one over the other.