Nice job, Phil. I like the positioning of authority in revelation by including the details of both scriptural and apostolic authority on one hand and the authority of the Fathers on the other. You infer, I liberally suggest, that later councils and doctors and saints would add to that.
Your analysis may not have been as necessary in the early Church. The "whole counsel" of the Church allowed for God's broad scope of revelation. Once we "codified" scripture, though, the hierarchy of revelation started. In truth, they all go hand in hand to clarify the truth. One shouldn't take away from any of God's methods and means to draw us to him and to live with us.
Lots of opportunity for clarification of doctrine, as developing yet always true, as Newman said. Of course, I may be just reading all this into your article. I get pretty excited over this stuff!
I think Dei Verbum is a good place to discuss and discern the idea of revelation, authority and its relation and order among different mediums of revelation. What is the origin of authority? well...Dei Verbum uses two phrases "With His Lips" and "from the lips of Christ." (Dei Verbum, 7.) The origin of authority in relation to revelation is the preaching of Christ then its the preaching of the Apostles--the tradition, and from that is the foundation of the revelation of inspired writers of the New Testament.
There are some Catholic apologist, which I won't mention any names, who act as though Sacred Scripture is absent from the earliest of Christians, but this isn't true. The pre-Nicene fathers do refer to scripture in their writings with reference to some understanding of authority. I will clarify that during the Nicene period the role of authority does seem more equal in standing with one another and even into the scholastic period, the scholastics are master's of Sacred Scripture. In my opinion, the Catholic lack of awareness of Sacred Scripture is the historical effect of the Counter-Reformation, which in large part that was the optimism of Vatican II with a reengagement with some these discussions.
That’s an interesting position. The 95 theses by Luther padded a laundry list of issues to the framework of misconstrued scripture arguments. That would support your thinking. In the sense of getting scripture wrong means you’re going to get a weird twist on everything else.
It's a large topic, I would assert that from Dei Verbum, the Catholic Church expresses that prime revealer is Jesus Christ, Himself, and the prime revelation is the Blessed Trinity which is the telos of each person.
One could examine the Gospels themselves for answers, but the centrality of all understanding and interpretation rests on the lips of Christ, the Gospels often show in some manner Christ as the interpreter of the inspired works of the Old Testament.
Is there a way to know what is the channel of authority in the post-Ascension? Well, that's where the debates lies.
Yes, as debates go. We operate, though, from the charter aptly coined as being faithful and cognizant about the "mind of the church." It should be in sync with Jesus.
There's a mistaken notion that the Holy Spirit says different things to each of us in regards to the interpretation of scripture. He says different things in communication methods beyond my pay grade, but the interpretations aren't fluid in that way.
I think that's what bothers my exegetical friends outside of the Catholic loop. Well, that's not true. At least half of my Catholic peers might say they're some degree of orthodox, but they're really just playing a theological monopoly game. They never leave the debate, spending more energy on being right about their opinion.
Orthodox, by the way, is probably at the root of your comment. Don't throw around the intent of Jesus. Trust that in a prayerful prompting from his Holy Spirit we'll be convicted, or something about certainty that's really hard to pin down.
It's OK to do spitballing in debate, but a whole 'nother thing when proclaiming the mind of the Church.
I'll let you go. This conversation has no ending ....
Nice job, Phil. I like the positioning of authority in revelation by including the details of both scriptural and apostolic authority on one hand and the authority of the Fathers on the other. You infer, I liberally suggest, that later councils and doctors and saints would add to that.
Your analysis may not have been as necessary in the early Church. The "whole counsel" of the Church allowed for God's broad scope of revelation. Once we "codified" scripture, though, the hierarchy of revelation started. In truth, they all go hand in hand to clarify the truth. One shouldn't take away from any of God's methods and means to draw us to him and to live with us.
Lots of opportunity for clarification of doctrine, as developing yet always true, as Newman said. Of course, I may be just reading all this into your article. I get pretty excited over this stuff!
God bless.
Thank you so much.
I think Dei Verbum is a good place to discuss and discern the idea of revelation, authority and its relation and order among different mediums of revelation. What is the origin of authority? well...Dei Verbum uses two phrases "With His Lips" and "from the lips of Christ." (Dei Verbum, 7.) The origin of authority in relation to revelation is the preaching of Christ then its the preaching of the Apostles--the tradition, and from that is the foundation of the revelation of inspired writers of the New Testament.
There are some Catholic apologist, which I won't mention any names, who act as though Sacred Scripture is absent from the earliest of Christians, but this isn't true. The pre-Nicene fathers do refer to scripture in their writings with reference to some understanding of authority. I will clarify that during the Nicene period the role of authority does seem more equal in standing with one another and even into the scholastic period, the scholastics are master's of Sacred Scripture. In my opinion, the Catholic lack of awareness of Sacred Scripture is the historical effect of the Counter-Reformation, which in large part that was the optimism of Vatican II with a reengagement with some these discussions.
That’s an interesting position. The 95 theses by Luther padded a laundry list of issues to the framework of misconstrued scripture arguments. That would support your thinking. In the sense of getting scripture wrong means you’re going to get a weird twist on everything else.
It is about God’s channel of authority, isn’t it?
It's a large topic, I would assert that from Dei Verbum, the Catholic Church expresses that prime revealer is Jesus Christ, Himself, and the prime revelation is the Blessed Trinity which is the telos of each person.
One could examine the Gospels themselves for answers, but the centrality of all understanding and interpretation rests on the lips of Christ, the Gospels often show in some manner Christ as the interpreter of the inspired works of the Old Testament.
Is there a way to know what is the channel of authority in the post-Ascension? Well, that's where the debates lies.
Yes, as debates go. We operate, though, from the charter aptly coined as being faithful and cognizant about the "mind of the church." It should be in sync with Jesus.
There's a mistaken notion that the Holy Spirit says different things to each of us in regards to the interpretation of scripture. He says different things in communication methods beyond my pay grade, but the interpretations aren't fluid in that way.
I think that's what bothers my exegetical friends outside of the Catholic loop. Well, that's not true. At least half of my Catholic peers might say they're some degree of orthodox, but they're really just playing a theological monopoly game. They never leave the debate, spending more energy on being right about their opinion.
Orthodox, by the way, is probably at the root of your comment. Don't throw around the intent of Jesus. Trust that in a prayerful prompting from his Holy Spirit we'll be convicted, or something about certainty that's really hard to pin down.
It's OK to do spitballing in debate, but a whole 'nother thing when proclaiming the mind of the Church.
I'll let you go. This conversation has no ending ....