Bible and Tradition

[Contarini]

Clearly the Church recognized the authority of scripture.

But just to clarify: Are you saying that the Church, as only a recognizer of Scripture’s divine inspiration, has no authority to interpret Sacred Scripture?

No, I’m not saying that at all.

Or that the authority of the Church goes only as far as the limits of what Scripture teaches?

The authority of the Church extends to receiving and interpreting divine revelation, not to creating new truth (that should not be controversial). I do not have a problem with the affirmation of Vatican II that the Church’s certainty concerning divine revelation stems not only from Scripture but also from the continuous transmission of apostolic teaching through the centuries. Given how rich and varied Scripture is, and how susceptible of different interpretations and extensive development of the ideas it contains in embryonic form, I’m not sure if the question of “material sufficiency” is answerable. But divine revelation is certainly not limited to the historical-literal sense of Scripture as defined by modern scholarship.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But, to use your analogy, in this the case the Church (the professor) actually wrote the books of the New Testament.

I don’t think this does justice to the historic faith of the Church concerning the divine inspiration of Scripture. The Church has consistently spoken of Scripture as something given to her by God, not something she herself created. Obviously both are true in a sense, but the former is the primary way in which Christians have historically spoken of Scripture (as in St. Thomas’s statement that the primary author of Scripture is God).

Edwin

 

[Philthy]

I told my dad that - “the Bible is Tradition” I even made an uppercase “T” with my two pointer finger. He still sees the word “tradition” as man-made, though.

One thing he said may help you in discerning his understanding of the Bible: “I believe that even if the church wasn’t there to bring it together then we would still have the Bible”

Now that I think about it, his statement is completely absurd.

Of course it is absurd. How can you possibly support such a statement without appealing to a tradition or something even weaker - personal revelation?
I wouldnt let that point go because it is about as flimsy a foundation as you will find, and it might very well be the point which brings him to realize that appart from the Church revealing Scripture we are left helpless. And not only that, but since he acknowledges that the Church did, in fact, bring it together, that it did so as God’s instrument for all to see. Why would God do that in the 4th century, if it wasnt in order to reveal to us the Church?

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<One thing he said may help you in discerning his understanding of the Bible: “I believe that even if the church wasn’t there to bring it together then we would still have the Bible” >>

Question: Were it not for the Church, just WHO or WHAT would God have used to put the Bible together?

 

[murphdog261]

The Apostles, the first leaders of the Catholic Church, and other Catholic bishops and priests, wrote the New Testament. So it is true to say that the Catholic Church wrote it.

Although the members of the Church did literally write the scripture, and recognized what scripture was divinely inspired, if I was asked as to who the author of Sacred Scripture was, it would be God, just as He is author of Holy Tradition

<<The authority of the Church extends to receiving and interpreting divine revelation, not to creating new truth (that should not be controversial). I do not have a problem with the affirmation of Vatican II that the Church’s certainty concerning divine revelation stems not only from Scripture but also from the continuous transmission of apostolic teaching through the centuries. Given how rich and varied Scripture is, and how susceptible of different interpretations and extensive development of the ideas it contains in embryonic form, I’m not sure if the question of “material sufficiency” is answerable. But divine revelation is certainly not limited to the historical-literal sense of Scripture as defined by modern scholarship… >>

Contarini, we are closer in our thoughts than I think we realize. Plus the CCC kind of states the same thing:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48