Catholics, is it necessary that every doctrine be grounded in scripture?

[simonthezealot]

What's the church say?

 

[Gnarwhal]

Sigh...

 

[narnia59]

Former evangelical Mark Shea does a good job of addressing this in his trilogy Mary, Mother of the Son regarding the 4 Marian dogmas:

“That said, the first thing to establish is whether these four dogmas are, in fact, compatible with Scripture. Note that I do not say “Biblically-based”. For as with various other teachings we have already looked at, Marian doctrines are not derived from Scripture. They are, rather, reflected there. That is, they’re what you get when you read Scripture through the lens of the apostolic Tradition as preserved by the Spirit-guided Body of Christ in union with the bishops and pope in succession from the apostles. In short, they have the same descent as the canon of Scripture itself, the doctrine of the Trinity, the rejection of polygamy, and the teaching that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. To reject such teachings, it’s not sufficient to show that it’s not absolutely explicit in Scripture alone, since none of the teachings I just mentioned are either. Rather, one must show that Scripture clearly and unequivocally contradicts it. And, as we shall show, not only is there no place where Scripture contradicts Catholic Marian teaching, there are actually many places where the Bible bears surprising witness to it. (Mark Shea, “Mary Mother of the Son”, vol 2 p19)

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Former evangelical Mark Shea does a good job of addressing this in his trilogy Mary, Mother of the Son regarding the 4 Marian dogmas:

“That said, the first thing to establish is whether these four dogmas are, in fact, compatible with Scripture. Note that I do not say “Biblically-based”. For as with various other teachings we have already looked at, Marian doctrines are not derived from Scripture. They are, rather, reflected there. That is, they’re what you get when you read Scripture through the lens of the apostolic Tradition as preserved by the Spirit-guided Body of Christ in union with the bishops and pope in succession from the apostles. In short, they have the same descent as the canon of Scripture itself, the doctrine of the Trinity, the rejection of polygamy, and the teaching that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. To reject such teachings, it’s not sufficient to show that it’s not absolutely explicit in Scripture alone, since none of the teachings I just mentioned are either. Rather, one must show that Scripture clearly and unequivocally contradicts it. And, as we shall show, not only is there no place where Scripture contradicts Catholic Marian teaching, there are actually many places where the Bible bears surprising witness to it. (Mark Shea, “Mary Mother of the Son”, vol 2 p19)

That is exactly the same citation Root of Jesse wrote in his post here, in The BIBLE only is the standard for truth...(2) thread.

 

[narnia59]

That is exactly the same citation Root of Jesse wrote in his post here, in The BIBLE only is the standard for truth...(2) thread.

Ok

 

[Erose]

What's the church say?

The short answer? No. Sacred Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, not the sum of it.

 

[football5680]

No. Saint Paul told Christians to hold on to the traditions that were taught to us, either by spoken word or by letter. If everything had to be grounded in scripture then this wouldn't make sense and Saint Paul would have simply said hold on to the traditions I wrote in my letters. The Catholic church is apostolic so everything was passed on from one generation to the next.

 

[fhansen]

What's the church say?

The gospel was received by the Church-and is handed on by the Church. The Church teaches that scripture is materially sufficient; that all truths regarding man's salvation can be found in Scripture. She uses both her lived, historical Tradition along with Scripture to support her various doctrinal positions.

 

[MKJ]

I can't think of a Catholic doctrine that they don't see as being grounded in Scripture, and they have always made a point of doing so. You can disagree with their interpretation of course, but yes, I would say that like the Church Fathers, they always look first to Scripture.

That being said, they would say that no one approaches Scripture without preconceived ideas that tell them how to read it, and that it is the Tradition of the Church that gives us those, and tells us what range of interpretations would be acceptable or not.

 

[simonthezealot]

What does the CHURCH say?

 

[Erose]

What does the CHURCH say?

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum

Here is the part that you may be most interested in; but I would heavily recommend reading the whole document, which is our understanding of Divine Revelation:


HANDING ON DIVINE REVELATION

7. In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[By Faith Alone]

No. Saint Paul told Christians to hold on to the traditions that were taught to us, either by spoken word or by letter. If everything had to be grounded in scripture then this wouldn't make sense and Saint Paul would have simply said hold on to the traditions I wrote in my letters. The Catholic church is apostolic so everything was passed on from one generation to the next.

The difference is in man-made tradition and INSPIRED tradition.

 

[pathfinder777]

What's the church say?

Depends on what you mean by "grounded"

All doctrines with maybe with the exception of the incarnation go beyond (e.g. homoousias >> Nicaea 325) the Sciptures to some extent admittedly some more than other e.g. Marian doctrines vs. Trinity.......

No Catholic doctrines contradict Scripture.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum



10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.[/I]

So this is the part that's interesting to me, I see two stark things here.
1.) the teaching office is a servant to the word of God
2.) One can not stand without the others

So is it right to assume that each of these are necessarily a part of each deposit of faith and/or doctrine?

 

[simonthezealot]

Depends on what you mean by "grounded"

All doctrines with maybe with the exception of the incarnation go beyond (e.g. homoousias >> Nicaea 325) the Sciptures to some extent admittedly some more than other e.g. Marian doctrines vs. Trinity.......

No Catholic doctrines contradict Scripture.

Well root of jesse made this comment "Scripture is absolutely necessary to prove every doctrine."

And i'm simply trying to figure out what exactly that means, because frankly many rcc folk have essentially been attacking the authority of scripture on the other thread I have going.

 

[MKJ]

Well root of jesse made this comment "Scripture is absolutely necessary to prove every doctrine."

And i'm simply trying to figure out what exactly that means, because frankly many rcc folk have essentially been attacking the authority of scripture on the other thread I have going.

They haven't been really. What they have been doing is saying that its authority exists in relation to other authorities, and if you don't acknowledge those other sorts of authority in any way, you also will impinge the authority of Scripture.

So, the Scriptures themselves are authoritative, but they don't just appear suddenly from the ether fully formed and in a bound text.

If we want to say - the Scriptures are absolutely trustworthy and reliable, then we must be able to say we know absolutly reliably what is Scripture and what is not, and so we must have an absolutely reliable means to know what they are.

So the question is, how is it that we think the Church was or is reliably and with authority able to determine this. Why or why would we not be able to use the same process of discernment for other questions, like the context that we should use for reading Scripure, or what the liturgy should be, or whatever.

Whatever answer you want, you have to address that question of how the Church could know reliably what was Scripture, and how we know it reliably now. Scripture is only as reliable as our confidence in having the right texts. Unfortunately it often seems like people on CF simply want to ignore that problem - they maintain Scripture is 100% reliable, but they also tell us the Church had no means to determine things reliable, or worse, that it was actually corrupt.

 

[MKJ]

So this is the part that's interesting to me, I see two stark things here.
1.) the teaching office is a servant to the word of God
2.) One can not stand without the others

So is it right to assume that each of these are necessarily a part of each deposit of faith and/or doctrine?

Yes, they are saying that the teachers cannot just make things up at any level, they have to teach what has been revealed. And that you can not rightly understand Scripture apart from the tradition and vice versa.

 

[pathfinder777]

Well root of jesse made this comment "Scripture is absolutely necessary to prove every doctrine."

And i'm simply trying to figure out what exactly that means, because frankly many rcc folk have essentially been attacking the authority of scripture on the other thread I have going.

The Catholic Church emphatically holds to the unique position the Scriptures possess as the inspired word of God and venerates them as she does the body of Christ in the Eucharist. They are normative for faith and morals as well as doctrine. The Scriptures in the liturgy are powerfully connected with the EucharisT. The deacon carries the Book of the Gospels into the Church, leading the procession, and lifting it high above his head for all to see. He places the Book of the Gospels upon the altar table for the introductory rites of the Mass.
In the Liturgy of the Word, the book of the Gospels is carried in procession by the Deacon from its place on the altar to the ambo. In solemn liturgies he is led by two altar servers carrying lighted candles signifying the Word as Light
In solemn liturgies incense is offered to the book of the Gospels—indicating the presence of Christ in the Word. After reading the Gospel the Deacon kisses the page of the Gospel reading. Then he carries it to the presiding celebrant who kisses it also. If a Bishop is presiding, he takes the book of the Gospels and blesses the Congregation with it—again indicating the presence of Christ in his Word.

I think when some Catholics argue against SS they sometimes come off as not holding to a high view of Scripture as if somehow by acknowledging the unique status of the Scriptures it somehow undermines their arguments against SS. It doesn't. More commonly it's proponents of SS that are misinterpreting the views of Catholics as holding to views that make the Scriptures subservient to the Church. Those who do argue that are in error relative to official Church teaching.

 

[~Anastasia~]

subscribing

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is exactly the same citation Root of Jesse wrote in his post here, in The BIBLE only is the standard for truth...(2) thread.

I copied it from him, since he took the time to type it out. It's relevant here, as well as there.