Some God-breathed things are sufficient?

Apology accepted :slight_smile:

Good Question.
We both agree that it is clearly there for Dogma. The question is what does the church say about its other teachings? Obvious options:

  1. All the teachings regarding religion are inspired by the Holy Spirit
  2. None of the other teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit
  3. The church doesn’t have a position on this
  4. We can mix and match 1,2 and 3 for different types of teaching or
  5. There is some sort of presumption that the other teachings are inspired.

My guess would be 5.

I tend to think of the Holy Spirit acting in the church (and indeed acting in us) generally. Certainly we think the Holy Spirit acts in the church for Transubstantiation. (that of course isn’t even close to a teaching) But I also would guess the Holy Spirit would guide the church in pronouncements such as that a marriage is a null. In other words it would hopefully be there when people take any religious issue to the church for guidance including excommunications etc.

What is giving me pause is this line of thought: I thought the infallibility does not stretch to every teaching only dogma. So what I am suggesting is the Holy Spirit is guiding the church regarding matters yet there actions and teachings still wouldn’t be infallible. :confused: Perhaps it wouldn’t be any different than how the Holy Spirit can guide us but sometimes we aren’t sure we are correctly following the guidance on an individual level. Sometimes the Church says she is sure she is following the Holy Spirit and hence its dogma. Other times the Church isn’t so definite.

Ok back to you to add some confusion.

BTW: I have vague thoughts that the “God breathed” came from “Divinely inspired” where “inspiration” comes from a similar Greek root for “respiration.” God Breathed into the Gospel.

Without actually thinking about this too much, I would say, “True with the following qualification: Some God-breathed things are materially sufficient as the sole rule of faith. The Bible is one, for sure.”

or

“Some disciples are sufficient as the sole rule of faith” - True or False

I would say, "True with the following qualification, “Some Apostles were formally sufficient as the sole rule of faith…how many would have been required to achieve a quorum I can’t say for sure. Maybe only one.”

And you come to this TRUE conclusion with the help of scripture and/or tradition and/or magisterial? If scripture, then where? I see you used materially sufficient…but how do we/you know if it contains or it implies all that is needed for salvation? Who would discern how much of the God-breathed things are required? A source outside of scripture? A final authority outside of scripture of some sort? Someone may say that all we need is one particular sentence from scripture, i.e. John 3:16…while another may say all of it…while another may say particular portions of it.

Again, and you come to this TRUE conclusion with the help of scripture and/or tradition and/or magisterial? If scripture, then where?

Take for example the apostle who wrote the gospel of Matthew…he is formally sufficient as the sole rule of faith since he doesn’t need an outside source to interpret what he wrote, has some teaching authority and also knows the sacred traditions…But what about his immediate successor/disciple…who learned the true interpretation of his writings, sacred traditions and inherited his teaching authority…then wouldn’t the successor be formally sufficient as the sole rule of faith?? Even if they were other apostles and their writings floating around which are in communion…the apostle who wrote the gospel of Matthew would go to an outside source (writers themselves or successors) to interpret their god-breathed writings.

What is your point and what are you trying to get at?

As far as I know…only the dogmas are incontrovertibly TRUE…other teachings by the Church may be debated, now whether or not they come from the Spirit, I don’t know…and I tend to think they do not. Recall Matthew 16, “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” So Whatsoever the authoritative Church felt it needed to bind (make conservative) or loose (make liberal), is not led by the spirit…on the other hand, the authoritative Church could be led by the spirit…whatsoever the Church binds or looses because it is being led by the spirit to bind or loose.:shrug:

ok i think this is another thread…

Randy I’m trying see how you or anyone comes to a conclusion of TRUE or FALSE for the statements:

“Some God-breathed things are materially sufficient as the sole rule of faith”

“Some God-breathed things are formally sufficient as the sole rule of faith”

Also what faith/evidence/reasoning to support that the statements are either TRUE or FALSE.

By the way, I appreciate your feedback and your input to this thread…you helped explain formally and materially.

thought about this for while…I would say that a Catholic can also assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture…as Paul says, the spirit can teach you…i.e. possibly provide outside information to help interpret. Of course, I’ll say that this is highly unlikely given humans can easily be fooled by a false spirit…but not impossible. But the good thing that the catholic faithful have is the Church which is for sure guided by the spirit so it doesn’t leave us guessing and takes care of us like a good mother.

Not so. As the article I posted states: “while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency”.

The Scriptures are not perspicuous if “outside information” is necessary to interpret them correctly. The dictionary definition or perspicuous is “easy to understand”. Of course, scripture itself states that “some things [in Paul’s letters] are hard to understand”.

Scripture declares itself to be non-perspicuous and, therefore, not formally sufficient.

first, what God-breathed things means?

**

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

I agree. But who determines whether a scripture is considered “easy to understand” or perspicuous?? The reader themselves. What is easy for someone may not be to someone else. Does it mean that when it is perspicuous, they have the spirit assistance (helps with the true knowledge and reasoning)…and the one who is having a hard time understanding, unfortunately does not have the spirit assistance (hence ignorance, misinformed, lack of reasoning)?

I would say, “Scripture declares some, not all of itself to be non-perspicuous and, therefore, not formally sufficient.” So it appears to me that we can’t rule out that there exists, “some Scripture that is perspicuous and, therefore, formally sufficient”

Depends on your faith…feel free to define it to be what you feel it means (which may come from the Spirit) and/or define it to be what you have been taught through tradition (which may also come from the Spirit)

Thanks for the feedback

by the way, I like the Augustine quote. One can say that the Spirit in some supernatural way protects the Church from teaching error…providing the the things that are incontrovertibly truth in regards to the faith…So the Spirit reveals to the Church, then the Church revealed it to Augustine thru moving him by its teaching authority. So ultimately, Augustine could possibly have said, “I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the Spirit”…Spirit indirectly reaching Augustine…now I’m not saying that the Spirit can’t reveal directly…it possibly can.

eh… St Augustine knew better. he had been throught it when outside the Church.

i like what Father Corapi said the other day. if any spirit speak against the Church you better believe he is not the Spirit of God.

**

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…
Who has the authority?.. **

Why isn’t Jesus breathing on the disciples and giving them the power to forgive and RETAIN sin not sufficient for any Protestant to believe in sacramental confession?

Hmm,…but what do you think he means by “speak against the Church”?..does he mean against absolutely every single thing in and about the Church? Or just the dogmas, things that are incontrovertibly true as declared by the Church?

By the way, do you have any TRUE or FALSE response for the statements I posted earlier? Also with supporting evidence of any kind why they are T or F.:slight_smile:

he meant those who speak against the teachings of the Church.

**

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… B]**

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.