Catholic way of viewing the Bible and Tradition

[CrossofChrist]

I think everyone is familiar with the Catholic Church accepting Tradition and Scripture as equal in authority. My question is if the following is an acceptable way, from a Catholic perspective, of looking at the relationship between the Bible and Tradition:

Is it allowed to view the Bible as all-embracing of Christ, i.e the totality of the Word of God is found in Scripture, it just has to be “dug out” so to speak? Certainly it would be the product of Tradition handed on by Christ, but that would be I guess codified in Scripture. Tradition via Ecumenical Councils and whatnot would then shed light on the Bible. And this is not necessarily the Church knowing everything from Scripture alone since she “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.” (Dei Verbum 9) Some certainty could be derived from speculating on truths Tradition reveals in things like Ecumenical Councils.

If this isn’t an ok view that’s alright as well. Since the truths of Scripture can be a foundation for the dogmas by being the starting point, showing emphasis on how God continues his truths being conveyed by written word from the Old Covenant to the New. Tradition could run alongside the Bible and clarify and enlighten when needed, since after all Scripture is from the living Tradition of the Church.

 

[po18guy]

Short answer: no.

Revelation produced tradition which produced scripture. Since the bible tells us in so many places and in so many ways that it is an incomplete record, and since it is a finite book, it cannot contain all revelation of an infinite God. It is an icon, a symbol, of God, but it cannot contain all truth, or it would have to be infinite.

To individually extract additional meaning from the scriptures is the foundational failure of bible Christianity. This practice laces the individual and sinful ego in charge of God’s revealed truth. Epic fail.

 

[Evan]

Consider how the 3 legs of authority came into the Church.

1. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and authority to teach to the apostles (who then passed it on)
2. The preaching of the Apostles spread the faith and the traditional activities were initiated (how to celebrate mass, how to baptize, how to confirm, how to forgive sins, etc)
3. Around 300 years after the ascension, a list of books that were traditionally used at mass were collected and authorized by the pope to be read at mass. This collection of books became known as the Bible or Sacred Scripture.

So

1st: Magisterium (teaching authority of the church)
2nd: Tradition
3rd: Scripture

It was only when the list was disputed that the Council of Trent definitively gave a MINIMUM list of inspired books. Until then, the list would have been defined by Sacred Tradition.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Short answer: no.

Revelation produced tradition which produced scripture. Since the bible tells us in so many places and in so many ways that it is an incomplete record, and since it is a finite book, it cannot contain all revelation of an infinite God. It is an icon, a symbol, of God, but it cannot contain all truth, or it would have to be infinite.

To individually extract additional meaning from the scriptures is the foundational failure of bible Christianity. This practice laces the individual and sinful ego in charge of God’s revealed truth. Epic fail.

That’s what I thought instinctively but I figured I might as well find out for sure. I didn’t want to reject something which could be acceptable.

 

[po18guy]

That’s what I thought instinctively but I figured I might as well find out for sure. I didn’t want to reject something which could be acceptable.

If you are in the US, it might be helpful to bear in mind that the prevailing theology in America is primarily protestant and therefore stems from bible-based thought rather than Christ-based thought. If one’s community has no Eucharist and/or it is merely a symbol, then all that is left for the physical presence of Christ is the bible. And, that seems to be exactly what has happened.

 

[DebChris]

What we as Catholic have received is Tradition. Tradition is what Christ directly taught the Apostles. Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. The teaching authority of the Church belongs to the Pope and his bishops, the magisterium.
In the Book of Acts, it says that the followers of the Way submitted to the Apostles. As Catholics, that’s what we continue to do when we submit to the magisterium of the Church. They are the descendents of the Apostles, the earthly authority of the Church belongs to them. In time, what the Apostles received was codified, or written down, joined with the books of the OT to form the Bible as we know it today.
Today, the Tradition of the Catholic Church, what the Apostles received directly from Jesus Christ, and entrusted to the Magisterium has been handed intact to us. This is possible by through the protection of the Holy Spirit. The Dogmatic Constitution on Sacred Revelation tells that Tradition, the teaching authority of the Church, and Sacred Scripture, each in its own way, and together work for the salvation of souls. They do not work alone.
The Gospel of John begins by telling us “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God…and the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.” No book fell from the sky, but Jesus Christ, fully divine became incarnate, one in being with the Father who spoke and created the world.

Over time the Church magisterium has met in Council when confronted with different issues. Through out the years since Christ taught the Apostles, it has come to a deeper understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Church continues to learn.

 

[rcwitness]

Short answer: no.

Revelation produced tradition which produced scripture. Since the bible tells us in so many places and in so many ways that it is an incomplete record, and since it is a finite book, it cannot contain all revelation of an infinite God. It is an icon, a symbol, of God, but it cannot contain all truth, or it would have to be infinite.

To individually extract additional meaning from the scriptures is the foundational failure of bible Christianity. This practice laces the individual and sinful ego in charge of God’s revealed truth. Epic fail.

Hey po18guy,

Without specifically saying I think you are wrong to say, “No” as an answer to the question, I believe there is an equal “Yes” answer to the question.

I believe that the Church does recognize a “hidden” fullness in the complete 73 books of Sacred Scripture. You yourself are very well versed in Scripture and defending the Catholic faith with Scripture. Is it by Scripture alone? No, because you have the aid of Magisterial Teaching (Universal Interpretation) and Sacred Oral Tradition. But that doesn’t mean that the truth wasn’t within the Written Word.

My point isn’t to say we don’t equally need Church interpretation or have not relied on Oral Traditions to establish the early Church foundation, but that these truths were at some point and in some way (wheather hidden or obvious) placed into Scriptures final canon. So to say that the Scriptures are lacking in God’s revelation is not necessarily as easy as saying yes or no.

For example, we know from Church Teaching that Scripture is materially sufficient to save us, while not formally sufficient. We can read the Word of God which has the power to convict us of our sin, lead us to repentance and thus being saved. We also know from Scripture that we must seek Baptism by the Church. We then know from Scripture that we must come together to receive His body and blood for our salvation too.

To make the claim that the early Church, which had not received the final canon of Scripture, means that the final Scripture canon is lacking, does not exactly do Scripture justice either. So I believe that it is a Catholic position to recognize a “certain” fullness within the Written Word of God. I just don’t fall into the pridefullness of Sola Scriptura because that leads to private interpretation which leads to division. But we are free and able, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret Scripture. Some even have this gift, and its not only the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the only authority to bind her interpretation on the whole Church, and whose interpretation all other interpretation cannot contradict.

The Holy Scriptures have a kind of way which we can see personal prophecy when we read it. It is the Word of God speaking through literature to all those who will listen. I personally hear the Written Word of God leading me to obey the True Teachings of His Catholic Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Is there an example of a public revelation or Oral Tradition which is not in anyway alluded to in Sacred Scripture?

 

[rcwitness]

Remember, the Catechism states that the Church has always venerated the Sacred Scriptures as she does the Lord’s Body.

The Scriptures are the literary equivalent to the Eucharist. Receiving the Eucharist is like reading and accepting the whole bible in a single instant.

Those who hold to Sacred Scripture are assuming they have read and retained the whole meaning of all of the 73 books contained in the canon of Scripture.

When Jesus met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, He started with the beginning of Scritpure and went though everything concerning Himself and explained it. There hearts were burning yet there eyes were kept from recognizing Him until they ate of His Communion.

We cannot, without Baptism and Eucharist, provided through the Church, formally grow in the Salvation made available to us.

It’s just not beneficial to try to seperate the Written Word from the Church. In it’s proper setting and deliverance, the Written Word is complete.

Even the Lord’s prayer is called a mini Gospel by the Catechism. There is a wholeness of the Word of the Lord contained within. It is living as to be constantly moving by its author in our hearts.

 

[po18guy]

Ah, but the search for all that is hidden in the scriptures has produced the innumerable denominations that we see today. Without the balancing and anchoring factor of the revelation contained in the Apostolic Tradition, guided by the Magisterium, the herd of Christian cats quickly disperses. We now have 497 years’ worth of evidence in that regard.

 

[po18guy]

The Scriptures are the literary equivalent to the Eucharist.

Ouch! Neither the scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, nor the Magisterium is the source and summit of Christian faith. That is only Christ Himself. The post-rebellion departure from Christ in the Eucharist and the embrace of scripture alone has almost deified the bible - which by itself cannot and will not save us. To me, in one limited respect, “bible alone” resembles some of the idols and false worship of the OT.

 

[Ignatius]

Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, did not leave us a book, not even an Epistle. He left us His Church. He handed on His teachings to The Twelve that He had chosen and they Handed On (i.e. Tradition) to other faithful men. Tradition is what is handed on and all that we have in what has become the New Testament was handed down orally many decades until some of it was written down.Scripture is part of Tradition.
Another important thing to note, which books are God Inspired and to be used as The New Testament is also a Tradition we received from His Church.

Without The Church that Jesus Founded (The Catholic Church) and her Sacred Tradition, we would not have The New Testament Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Hey po18guy,

Without specifically saying I think you are wrong to say, “No” as an answer to the question, I believe there is an equal “Yes” answer to the question.

I believe that the Church does recognize a “hidden” fullness in the complete 73 books of Sacred Scripture. You yourself are very well versed in Scripture and defending the Catholic faith with Scripture. Is it by Scripture alone? No, because you have the aid of Magisterial Teaching (Universal Interpretation) and Sacred Oral Tradition. But that doesn’t mean that the truth wasn’t within the Written Word.

My point isn’t to say we don’t equally need Church interpretation or have not relied on Oral Traditions to establish the early Church foundation, but that these truths were at some point and in some way (wheather hidden or obvious) placed into Scriptures final canon. So to say that the Scriptures are lacking in God’s revelation is not necessarily as easy as saying yes or no.

For example, we know from Church Teaching that Scripture is materially sufficient to save us, while not formally sufficient. We can read the Word of God which has the power to convict us of our sin, lead us to repentance and thus being saved. We also know from Scripture that we must seek Baptism by the Church. We then know from Scripture that we must come together to receive His body and blood for our salvation too.

To make the claim that the early Church, which had not received the final canon of Scripture, means that the final Scripture canon is lacking, does not exactly do Scripture justice either. So I believe that it is a Catholic position to recognize a “certain” fullness within the Written Word of God. I just don’t fall into the pridefullness of Sola Scriptura because that leads to private interpretation which leads to division. But we are free and able, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret Scripture. Some even have this gift, and its not only the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the only authority to bind her interpretation on the whole Church, and whose interpretation all other interpretation cannot contradict.

The Holy Scriptures have a kind of way which we can see personal prophecy when we read it. It is the Word of God speaking through literature to all those who will listen. I personally hear the Written Word of God leading me to obey the True Teachings of His Catholic Church.

I think Catholic theologians consider Scripture to be materially sufficient in terms of presenting all truths related to and necessary for the salvation of man. IOW, it’s all there, to one degree or another, but without the authority of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit and drawing on both Scripture and Tradition, it’s impossible to ascertain the full gospel truth going by Scripture alone.

 

[juliamajor]

The church existed before NT
church/tradition helped form the scriptures
just like the Jews believe that Torah and Oral Torah were give to the Jewish people at the time of Moses receiving the Law.
Scripture is not sufficient to save.Jesus saves

 

[sirach2v4]

Is there an example of a public revelation or Oral Tradition which is not in anyway alluded to in Sacred Scripture?

I think this question is self-contradictory. Sacred Scripture IS public revelation, which ended, as the Church says, with the death of the last apostle. so, there can be NO “public” revelation outside of Sacred Scripture.

Second part of question: Oral Tradition which is not in anyway alluded to in Sacred Scripture? I answered this question in a similar thread a couple days ago, which I cannot recall now. Today, I guess I’ll say that the assumption of Mary into heaven and her coronation as Queen of Heaven are not mentioned in scripture, although Rev 12 is a suggestion of the latter.

Jaroslav Pelikan was an American professor of church history at Yale and has received almost countless honorary doctorates for his insights and publications on that subject. His greatest work, as far as I know, is his five-volume set called The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Univ. of Chicago Press.

This 1800+ pages cannot be summarized in a post on this website. I highly recommend you get and study this five-volume set. The “sub” subtitle might be, 2000 years of bickering over the meaning of revelation – yes, very serious bickering which has gotten us to where we are today.

One of the most quotable lines from this set of volumes is “scriptura has never been sola” – (got it? “sola scriptura”, “scripture alone” – this is really the theme of the whole set of books – much to the dismay of a lot of fundamentalists and other Protestants).

Please recall, elsewise, that our Savior Jesus Christ said that he would send us the Advocate – the Holy Spirit – who would lead us into all truth. It is the heresy of prostestantism and fundamentalism that the work of the Holy Spirit is finished.

 

[rcwitness]

Ah, but the search for all that is hidden in the scriptures has produced the innumerable denominations that we see today. Without the balancing and anchoring factor of the revelation contained in the Apostolic Tradition, guided by the Magisterium, the herd of Christian cats quickly disperses. We now have 497 years’ worth of evidence in that regard.

No arguement

Ouch! Neither the scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, nor the Magisterium is the source and summit of Christian faith. That is only Christ Himself. The post-rebellion departure from Christ in the Eucharist and the embrace of scripture alone has almost deified the bible - which by itself cannot and will not save us. To me, in one limited respect, “bible alone” resembles some of the idols and false worship of the OT.

While we agree that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian faith, I personally would not go to the extreme to say that those espousing SS are reducing the Bible to nothing else necessary. For example, I am sure they do not reject the fact that the Holy Spirit must move us to accept and lead us to follow the Written Word. Or that Baptism through the Church is necessary. Yet, there are many opposing denominations because there are certain things about their understanding of the Written Word that they reject. Our Catechism recognizes the saving gospel which many of these denominations posses because of two factors alone… The Bible and valid Baptism. These individuals who have this saving Communion with us do not directly have the Eucharist. Yet the Eucharist produces Scripture, which is sufficient to save them and nurture their faith, so long as they are genuine.

So it seems to me, there are degrees of acceptance of the Truths which all can be supported through the Written Word, but Catholic faith is most accurate because it recognizes the Written Word springing from the Eucharist and its setting.

In the end, I think I like to hold Scripture equally high as any non Catholic, while also recognizing the gift of Universal interpretation which only the Church united with our Bishop who has succeeded Peter posseses. Still, many faiths do accept and embrace many of these interpretations. They just dont do it for the sake of the men in funny hats But neither should a good Catholic. We do it because we believe leaders are leaders for a reason… because Jesus fashioned His manner of shepherding this way.

 

[DebChris]

The Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation is explicit. The Written Word, sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are all equally important. None stands alone, and each in its own way contributes to the salvation of souls.
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
The Word did not come to us in written form, but in the flesh.

 

[sirach2v4]

Furthermore (continuing from the previous post), no Christian denomination outside of Roman Catholicism can deny scripture, tradition, and magisterium.

Every such denomination has scripture, tradition, and magisterium, it’s just that in those non-Catholic denominations their tradition and magisterium is different (as well as scripture, for the extra books that Catholics have).

Catholics do not stand head-and-shoulders above other denominations in respect to having scripture, tradition, and magisterium. But, our Catholic faith is the correct combination of scripture, tradition, and magisterium.

Why would anybody rationally want to squeeze out tradition and magisterium? That really takes out the Spirit from the faith. scripture becomes, as Pope Benedict said, a dead letter.

 

[po18guy]

While we agree that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian faith, I personally would not go to the extreme to say that those espousing SS are reducing the Bible to nothing else necessary. For example, I am sure they do not reject the fact that the Holy Spirit must move us to accept and lead us to follow the Written Word. Or that Baptism through the Church is necessary. Yet, there are many opposing denominations because there are certain things about their understanding of the Written Word that they reject. Our Catechism recognizes the saving gospel which many of these denominations posses because of two factors alone… The Bible and valid Baptism. These individuals who have this saving Communion with us do not directly have the Eucharist. Yet the Eucharist produces Scripture, which is sufficient to save them and nurture their faith, so long as they are genuine.

From the preface of the 1975 “The Open Bible” (Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publishers)

**According to Dr. Wilber M. Smith (underlining mine),

1. The Bible discovers and convicts** us of sin.
2. The Bible helps cleanse us from the pollutions of sin.
3. The Bible imparts strength.
4. The Bible instructs us in what we are to do.
5. The Bible provides us with a sword for victory over sin.
6. The Bible makes our lives fruitful.
7. The Bible gives us power to pray.

To a non-fundamentalist Christian, this appears to be awfully close to idolatry, as each of the underlined is a divine grace. Very odd indeed that such persons who deny that God’s grace flows through the Sacraments believe that God’s grace flows through the possession of a bible.

 

[rcwitness]

From the preface of the 1975 “The Open Bible” (Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publishers)

To a non-fundamentalist Christian, this appears to be awfully close to idolatry, as each of the underlined is a divine grace. Very odd indeed that such persons who deny that God’s grace flows through the Sacraments believe that God’s grace flows through the possession of a bible.

Right, also I am firmiliar with the mealtime prayer, “Lord bless this food to our body.”

Not to mention the many times in Scripture where grace was imparted through objects, such as hankerchiefs, clothes, shadows, spit, breathe, etc.

But do you disagree with any of those statements regarding the power of God’s Written Word? I probably only have issues with #'s 6&7.

The thing is, is that as a Catholic, I see that the Church entrusted with writing, collecting, preserving and canonizing the writings God intended to be infallible and complete, is the same institution He entrusted His Eucharist first and foremost. The Bible came out of that blessed Church whom is sustained by His body and blood.