Bible authority.

At the time Jesus commisioned his staff, who had the authority over the gospel? The bible in its current form was not finalized for hundreds of years after the church was established. Who had the authority before that. I think that the church has authority over the bible, so long as it doesn’t contradict it

[quote=santaro75]At the time Jesus commisioned his staff, who had the authority over the gospel? The bible in its current form was not finalized for hundreds of years after the church was established. Who had the authority before that. I think that the church has authority over the bible, so long as it doesn’t contradict it
[/quote]

No one but God has authority over the gospel. However, Jesus gave His disciples special authority to preach the gospel, which they then handed on to their successors.

Hi Santaro,

Jesus is the Word of God. His message was transmitted to the apostles and this is what they preached. It has come down to us, partly in inspired written form, partly in non inspired form. The Church has no authority over the Bible, which is the inspired word of God. She RECEIVES the Bible. She is a witness to it.

Verbum

[quote=santaro75]At the time Jesus commisioned his staff, who had the authority over the gospel? The bible in its current form was not finalized for hundreds of years after the church was established. Who had the authority before that. I think that the church has authority over the bible, so long as it doesn’t contradict it
[/quote]

The authority has always belonged to The Church, that is how it was 1970 years ago, that is how it is today. The bible is true in what it says, but sola scriptura is false.

jimmy,

I’m not sure what is meant by saying the Church has authority over the Bible. On the one hand, it would seem to mean that in the event that there is a contradiction between what the Church says and what the Bible says, then the Bible must be corrected by the Church, rather than the Church being corrected by the Bible. But I don’t get the impression that’s what it means since the Bible is said by the Church to be the inspired word of God.

Another possibility is that the Church has the authority to say what should and should not be included in the Bible–that is, to say what is and is not the inspired word of God. If so, then who did that authority belong to before the Church was established? After all, there were inspired writings before then, weren’t there?
Sam

[quote=ephphatha]jimmy,

I’m not sure what is meant by saying the Church has authority over the Bible. On the one hand, it would seem to mean that in the event that there is a contradiction between what the Church says and what the Bible says, then the Bible must be corrected by the Church, rather than the Church being corrected by the Bible. But I don’t get the impression that’s what it means since the Bible is said by the Church to be the inspired word of God.

Another possibility is that the Church has the authority to say what should and should not be included in the Bible–that is, to say what is and is not the inspired word of God. If so, then who did that authority belong to before the Church was established? After all, there were inspired writings before then, weren’t there?
Sam
[/quote]

I would agree with paragraph 2. The Church has the authority to say what is scripture, not to change what is scripture. The Church and scripture in no way contradict.

It is false to say that there was scripture previous to the founding of the Church. The Church was founded on Pentecost in 33AD. It was members of the Church who wrote the books of the bible between 20 and 50 years later. So, to say that scripture has authority over the Church, when the Church preexists scripture(of the NT), and the scripture(of the NT) was written by members of the Church is rediculous.

This authority comes from Christ himself, so there is no way that it can be superceded unless Christ or the Father say so. And that will not happen since Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

The Church determined which of the MANY writings were inspired and worthy of inclusion in the Bible. As such, without the Church, there would be no Bible.

-Michael

[quote=SouthCoast]The Church determined which of the MANY writings were inspired and worthy of inclusion in the Bible. As such, without the Church, there would be no Bible.

-Michael
[/quote]

Yes, I failed to mention that. It was in the 4th century that the Church made an authoritative decision on what was scripture. Without the Church there is no way to know what is scripture.

[quote=jimmy]It is false to say that there was scripture previous to the founding of the Church.
[/quote]

I’m almost certain that we’re having some kind of miscommunication. Do you not consider the old testament to be scripture?

I happen to accept the Bible as totally and completely authoritative. I believe that the Word found in Sacred Scripture contain all things necessary to salvation, and that no genuine apostolic Tradition will ever contradict the Word of God. If you cannot find it in Scripture or the practice of the ancient Church who recieved the direct teaching of the apostles, then it’s an attempt to improve upon the Apostles, and like the ancient Church, we are called to reject it.

That said, the Canon of the New Testament, when finally nailed down, a pretty specific guideline for inclusion: If it was written by an apostle or an apostolic figure and it’s authenticity was never in doubt, then it was accepted. That is why such books as the Protoevangelion of James was rejected - it was spurious (not written by James). No one knows who really wrote the Shepherd of Hermas, as good as the book is, and while Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and the Patristic Fathers wrote wonderful volumes of work, they were not considered to be apostolic figures.

Thus, Canon set, the Church went about preaching the good news and living out that good news in the context of the Tradition that was handed to her.

The modern concept that the Church has authority over the Bible is flawed, and when taken to extremes (as has been done of late) results in rank heresy. An Episcopal bishop in Pennsylvania is noted as having said in a homily “The Church wrote the Bible, and the Church can rewrite it whenever she feels the need.” This is utter fallacy, and is not only a non-Catholic position … it is a non-Christian one.

The Bible and Sacred Tradition hold rule over the Church, not the other way around. Whenever the Church goes about reinterpreting either for her own benefit, she falls into trouble.

Rob+

Hi Fr. Rob+ -

I’m curious which churches have “the modern concept that the Church has authority over the Bible.”

The Roman church has a different concept. From the Catachism…

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.” 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.”

I think you may disagree with the last sentence in paragraph #85. How do you see it?

God bless,Subrosa

[quote=Subrosa]Hi Fr. Rob+ -

I’m curious which churches have “the modern concept that the Church has authority over the Bible.”

[/quote]

I am most specifically thinking of the Episcopal Church, though the more liberal Lutheran bodies would fall into the category too.

The bishop who made the quote I noted above was Charles Bennison and I believe he is the Diocesan Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania.

Rob+

[quote=FrRobSST]I am most specifically thinking of the Episcopal Church, though the more liberal Lutheran bodies would fall into the category too.

The bishop who made the quote I noted above was Charles Bennison and I believe he is the Diocesan Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania.

Rob+
[/quote]

Do you agree with

“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?”

Subrosa

[quote=ephphatha]I’m almost certain that we’re having some kind of miscommunication. Do you not consider the old testament to be scripture?
[/quote]

Excuse me, I am speaking of the New Testament. The New Testament came after the Church. It is the Church that decided what books were scripture.

[quote=ephphatha]I’m almost certain that we’re having some kind of miscommunication. Do you not consider the old testament to be scripture?
[/quote]

If you read my post again, you will notice that I mentioned that I was speaking of the NT scripture.

[quote=tkdnick]No one but God has authority over the gospel. However, Jesus gave His disciples special authority to preach the gospel, which they then handed on to their successors.
[/quote]

The church predates the Bible by about 400 years. It is the Catholic Church, with the Authority given by Jesus Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which declaired infallibly what books were and were not part of the New Testament. It is the Catholic Church which has full Authority to properly interpret the Gospel.

God Bless.

[quote=Subrosa]Do you agree with

“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?”

Subrosa
[/quote]

Well now, if I did, my signature would say Roman Catholic Priest :slight_smile:

No, I believe that the Scriptures, taken in context with the world they were written in and how they were accepted by the ancient Church forms the interpretation base that we should be following. Further, if anyone was going to be asked to try to interpret today, it would have to be all bishops validly consecrated in the apostolic succession, not just those in communion with the Roman See.

Of course, I don’t see what further intrepretation is needed… but that’s just my perspective.

Rob+

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.