The norm that enables the faithful to know what to believe. The revealed Word of God in Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition is a remote rule of faith. But the teaching of the Church based on divine revelation is considered the immediate rule of faith.
next, from the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm
...the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.
.........................
The Church as the rule of faith
This follows necessarily from any adequate view of the Church as a Divinely constituted body, to whose keeping is entrusted the deposit of faith, but the grounds for this doctrine may be briefly stated as follows:
New Testament
Christ gave His disciples no command to write, but only to teach: "going therefore, teach ye all nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). And in accordance with this, the Church is everywhere presented to us as a living and undying societycomposed of the teachers and the taught. Christ is in the Church, and is its Head; and He promised that the Holy Spirit should be with it and abide in it. "He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (John 14:26). Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15; cf. Mark 16:16; Romans 10:17; Acts 15:28).
end of quote---it goes on to explain more fully the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth as I Tim 3:15 states
here is the quote from the above link:
Faith for Catholics is not only a simple trust in the gospel, it also includes believing in specific ideas. It means accepting certain truths about who God is, the nature of humanity, Christ and his life and even the church. When Catholics talk about the rule of faith they are describing the way in which Christian truth is understood, expressed and lived. Catholics understand God's truth to be perfect, both in its pure essence (or remote rule of faith) as well as in the way Christians must understand that truth (the proximate rule of faith).
REVELATION
An understanding of the Catholic ideas about the rule of faith must start by considering revelation. Catholics believe God has been revealed to humanity through the person of Jesus Christ and his life, death and resurrection. They also believe that God has been revealed in the Bible, and that God self-reveals through other means such as the traditions of the church as well as the natural order. Revelation, then, is the source of the rule of faith.
REMOTE RULE OF FAITH
Catholics believe all truth comes from God. God alone is truth to the Catholic. Catholics describe God's nature, attributes and knowledge as the "remote" rule of faith. God self-reveals to humanity, and that revelation itself is the remote rule of faith. It is considered remote because, as fallible creatures, human beings cannot directly interact with this perfect knowledge without some outside assistance. That assistance comes through the proximate rule of faith.
PROXIMATE BUT INANIMATE
Both the written books of the Bible and the unwritten traditions of the Church make up part of the proximate rules of faith, according to Catholics. This is the part of God's truth that human beings can interact with. Catholics read the scriptures and participate in the traditions of the church and thereby interact with the rules of faith. These are considered "inanimate" rules of faith, however. The Bible and the traditions of the church can't give themselves interpretation; they necessitate something living or animate to be fully understood.
PROXIMATE AND ANIMATE
The Catholic Church, and the magisterium or leadership in particular, has the duty to properly interpret the rule of faith for the Catholic Christian. The teachers of the Church, including theologians of the past, current priests and bishops and of course the Pope provide Catholics with an infallible understanding of the Bible and the church's traditions. Catholics refer to this role as the "proximate and animate" rule of faith because this is a dynamic, living interpretation of the rule of faith.
RULE OF FAITH IN PROTESTANTISM
The Protestant Reformation broke away from the Catholic Church over a number of different doctrinal issues. One of the core issues that separates these two strains of Christianity is the rule of faith. Protestants teach that the rule of faith is simply God's self-revelation through the scriptures, and that it is the duty of every believer to read and interpret the scriptures without interposition from the church. The Catholic Church has argued strongly against this position, fully rejecting private judgment as the rule of faith.
from comment 67 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/
If you are asking whether God’s direct speech is to be the rule of faith for the Church, the answer would have to be no. God’s direct speech and God’s acts in history constitute the material in the deposit of faith. But the rule for transmitting, interpreting, and safeguarding that deposit has been entrusted to authorized individuals. “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you… the overseer refutes false doctrine, etc.”
None of your examples establish the thing that you’re trying to prove
I think we must have a misunderstanding here. I am not arguing that Christ delivered every detail of the Tridentine Liturgy or Chrysostom’s liturgy, or some such development. But isn’t it obvious that Christ’s institution of the Eucharist predates its record in the Synoptics? And isn’t it obvious that Paul did not rely on his own letter to the Corinthians to convey the Church’s Eucharistic tradition to Corinth? He appealed to the tradition he received from the Lord.
Of course, we also have a written account of the institution, but the rite was in place and celebratedbefore any written account was offered. Is this really that controversial?
I’m still not sure what Apostolic practices you believe have been retained in the liturgy that are not grounded in Scripture.
Here’s one mentioned by Cyprian, but he’s not the first to do so:
Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united” (“On the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord,” No 13).
From St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit:
For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.
I would particularly direct your attention to the mention of the invocation at the display of the eucharistic elements, an extremely important eucharistic tradition (included in all ancient liturgies) that reinforces and confirms the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist.
from comment 71 at the same link:
from comment 71 at the same link:
I’ve been asking all along for a valid argument that concludes with “God intends the 66 to be the rule of faith.”
What I think I’ve been hearing instead is the assertion that the Scriptures are inspired, that they are the word of God, and that only the word of God should rule the Church, that the word of God is found nowhere but Scripture, therefore, etc. This is the position outlined in WCF and in Calvin. But the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises and at least one of the premises is question begging. So I’m asking you guys to present a valid argument for this conclusion.
This is why your arguments don’t introduce anything new to the discussion aside from huge leaps in logic.
You haven’t shown that my argument has “leaps.” And, I think that I have introduced something substantive to the discussion. Namely, the claim that the doctrine on the rule of faith must be taught by divine authority. This is a doctrine that the Protestant position implicitly denies. As Richard Muller notes, the Protestant infers Scripture’s regulative authority from its attributes, not from the actual content of revelation. You also seem to concede this, because every time I ask for evidence that God intends the 66, you respond that this is an illegitimate question. Instead, you propose an argument based on the attributes of Scripture, but not on its content. Attributes, I might add, that are alleged on the basis of interior experience (Sheep hearing voices, and all that), rather than on the actual content of revelation.
To summarize the Protestant approach:
1. I feel that these books are divine, so they must be divine.
2. Only the divine can rule the Church.
3. Only these books are divine (presumably, because I don’t get these feelings from other sources),
4. So only these books can rule the Church.
2. Only the divine can rule the Church.
3. Only these books are divine (presumably, because I don’t get these feelings from other sources),
4. So only these books can rule the Church.
The Catholic position is, rather:
1. Doctrine must be established by divine authority.
2. Christ (a divine authority) teaches that the faith is to be transmitted by authorized interpreters and via ritual/tradition.
3. Therefore, the rule of faith is this apostolic authority established by Christ.
4. And, for good measure, those authorized authorities never indicated that any canon of Scripture was to take over the job Christ gave them. Instead, they appointed men to succeed them and instructed them to hand on the faith, correct error, and appoint successors.
2. Christ (a divine authority) teaches that the faith is to be transmitted by authorized interpreters and via ritual/tradition.
3. Therefore, the rule of faith is this apostolic authority established by Christ.
4. And, for good measure, those authorized authorities never indicated that any canon of Scripture was to take over the job Christ gave them. Instead, they appointed men to succeed them and instructed them to hand on the faith, correct error, and appoint successors.
The Catholic position – rightly or wrongly – is based on the objective teaching of Christ and the apostles. The Protestant position is an inference, ultimately, from religious experience.
If you think I’ve mischaracterized the Protestant position, I’m happy to hear an alternate explanation.
[go to the comments on that post and the Protestants give good arguments for their views as well]
[go to the comments on that post and the Protestants give good arguments for their views as well]
No comments:
Post a Comment