PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Which is either just your opinion, or that of your church, which you have made a fallible decision to trust as being an infallible church. Which presumes this is essential and then gets into the details I asked about.In a general sense I would say that with respect to the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Spirit works within the Catholic Church in a way that He does not work in individual believers. I would not say that one can encounter the fullness of the truth outside of the Catholic Church, although individual people and non-Catholic communities of faith certainly can arrive at parts of the truth.
By an act of faith in Rome? Upon what basis? That Scripture establishes the Roman or EO church as being the one true church?I am not sure if I would absolutely agree with the statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia that you quoted, but it sounds consistent with the manner in which most people come to believe in Sacred Scripture.
Which is a superficial argument, for unless you believe in blind faith, then confidence in a person or entity must be based on some degree of evidential warrant. However, the Catholic position cannot be that one believes that Scripture provides evidential warrant for faith that the Roman or EO church is the one true church since he is said to need faith in the one true church in order to ascertain what Scripture is.Typically someone introduces the faith to you, and you have faith that the person is giving you something truthful or good. It may be a friend, a parent, a significant other, etc. who introduces someone to Sacred Scripture, and believers typically trust the person from whom they receive the Bible. It's not like Bibles just magically appear on anyone's desk, or that people hear a voice from God that says "Buy a Bible from Amazon". So the statement sounds reasonable, if I have understood it correctly. But I do not know if I would go so far as to say that a person could never come to a belief in Sacred Scripture, unless he first has faith a person from whom he received it.
I m glad that you do not simply parrot a party line, but Dulles is simply reiterating the common necessary fantasy that one cannot discover what Scripture consists of apart from his church. As told here a few days ago in this thread, it was the actions of men under infallible inspiration that was needed to choose what was scripture.As for the quote from Cardinal Dulles, I would prefer to see the entire passage before commenting on it, but at first glance I would agree with "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation." I would also agree with "Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief."
I do not know if I would agree with "They have to be told by people who have received in from on high." If he means that outside of the Catholic Church, one cannot come to the fullness of the truth, I would agree with it. But if he means that individual believers cannot discover any parts of the truth without the Catholic Church, I think I would disagree.
The premise is not that individual believers cannot discover any parts of the truth without the Catholic Church, but that without her infallible magisterium one cannot assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means.
A EO source even asserts,
"Scripture owes its authority to the Church.” — Alkiviadis C. Calivas, "Theology: The Conscience of the Church," p. 123
However, while judicially, as Westminster affirms, It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith... and authoritatively to determine the same, (CHAPTER XXXI) yet the key issue is whether this infers or requires ensured infallibility of office, which is what Rome presumes.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
You see, the problem Catholics face is that the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) does not manifest that the NT church held to all that Catholicism holds as doctrine. For instance, being unable to come up with even one prayer by a believer to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord amidst the over 200 prayers in Scripture, and resorting to erroneous extrapolation fails, then their typical recourse (in so many words) is "The Church gave you the Bible, it alone correctly knows what it means in any conflict," which is based upon the premise of ensured veracity.
And which premise would mean that Scripture establishes the Roman or EO church as being the one true church, yet that this said church establishes what Scripture is and means.
Meanwhile, as just told to another poster, even the most qualified scholars who have access to Tradition the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief and practice, resulting in competing "one true" churches.
Which presents more problems than it solves, dying the death of a multitude of qualifications contrary to the confusion it is posited as solving.I would rather defer to Dei Verbum than either of the sources that you cited.
Last edited:
Upvote
0