CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[guanophore]

Huh? Of course it has one intended meaning. Knowing that does not mean we will be able to discover what it is though.

This is an error in understanding the written revelation of God. The writer may have one meaning in mind when he wrote, but there are many meanings that can be found. For example, in the Psalms and the Messianic passages of Isaiah, we see the prophets writing about themselves, but we can also see how these passages apply to Jesus many centuries later.

We can also see that the entire sacrificial system practiced by Israel points to the perfect sacrifice of Christ. Both meanings are valid.

If what you say is true then there is far more confusion in the catholic church than protestant churches.

I agree that Catholic doctrine is complex, and is difficult for people with black and white thinking to grasp. I think this is why many fundamentalists attack the church. However, there are many layers to scripture, and diffferent levels of understanding it. When one does not accept this, one is prone to misintrepretation.

So you agree it was not taught by the apostles?

No. I recognize that it does not appear in the NT.

Maybe. But this is not proof that she was looked upon as the mother of the church though.

No, the proof lies more in the actual practice of the Church down through the centuries. this is further validated by the fact that the Orthodox embrace this doctrine also, and have no love for the Roman way of doing things.

If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

It most certainly is! topic for another thread.

It seems to me then that catholics are in no better position to understand the scriptures than protestants who must study the scriptures to determine what it means and do not have a Magesterim giving us an infallible interpretation.

To the extent that we all have a responsibility to study and show ourselves approved, then yes, we all are expected to work hard at understanding and practicing the Word. However, Catholics have the advantage of a sure guide in the case of confusion.

Sometimes its the minutae that nullifies an interpretation. In fact i think this is a problem for most of the marian doctrines.

One need not let this happen. The Church is a reliable guide on which matters are most pertinent to salvation.

 

[prov1x]

This is an error in understanding the written revelation of God. The writer may have one meaning in mind when he wrote, but there are many meanings that can be found. For example, in the Psalms and the Messianic passages of Isaiah, we see the prophets writing about themselves, but we can also see how these passages apply to Jesus many centuries later.

We can also see that the entire sacrificial system practiced by Israel points to the perfect sacrifice of Christ. Both meanings are valid.

I agree that Catholic doctrine is complex, and is difficult for people with black and white thinking to grasp. I think this is why many fundamentalists attack the church. However, there are many layers to scripture, and diffferent levels of understanding it. When one does not accept this, one is prone to misintrepretation.

No. I recognize that it does not appear in the NT.

No, the proof lies more in the actual practice of the Church down through the centuries. this is further validated by the fact that the Orthodox embrace this doctrine also, and have no love for the Roman way of doing things.

It most certainly is! topic for another thread.

To the extent that we all have a responsibility to study and show ourselves approved, then yes, we all are expected to work hard at understanding and practicing the Word. However, Catholics have the advantage of a sure guide in the case of confusion.

One need not let this happen. The Church is a reliable guide on which matters are most pertinent to salvation.

(Full disclosure: I am a Protestant)
Ultimately the question here is not whether the Assumption dogma appears in Scripture. It is fairly plain that it does not. The real question in one of authority. For the Roman Catholic person, this is the Magisterium. Whatever the Magisterium says is dogma must be followed, or the anathema is pronounced. Matthew 16, the “Keys” passage, is one of the primary passages used by the Magisterium to establish its right of infallible interpretation of the Bible, although only a handful of passages have been “infallibly” interpreted. From a logical standpoint this is circular reasoning. The Magisterium claims the right of infallible interpretation and uses that passage as proof. But it must already have an infallible ability to interpret Scripture in order to say that its interpretation of that passage is the correct and only possible interpretation. They must assume infallibility in order to infallibly interpret the passage that they claim proves they have the right of infallible interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church believes in sola scriptura as well, but just for the passages that they think establish infallibility. If that foundational assumption falls then the entire system falls. The members of the Magisterium must use the same methods, tools and rules of hermeneutics that any other scholar would use to interpret written works. They are also able, as sinful creatures, to bring into their interpretations whatever preconceived notions they may have. Every person has that tendency. We trust that the Lord would not lead us into falsehood, but so does the Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witness. Mormons ask that people pray to God about whether the Book of Mormon is true and they will receive the “burning in the bosom”, which will tell them it is true. What is the difference between that and eating some bad chili the night before? But no self-respecting Roman Catholic or Protestant would use an emotional argument to prove that the Book of Mormon is not the Word of God. He would provide logical argumentation backed with evidence. Otherwise it is just an endless ping-pong match between each person’s favorite “authorities”.

Looking at the references by the Apostle Paul to the “traditions” he had passed on to the Thessalonians, I have yet to see any scholar produce a definitive and defensible list of what those traditions were, apart from what Paul himself wrote in the letters. If anyone reading this thread has access to such a list please post a link to it so everyone can read it for himself. Given the number of references to particular ancient works I assume everyone here is willing to research original source materials and not just take someone’s word for it.

Truth (and souls) are at stake, so we all should be willing to check this stuff out for ourselves and let the facts lead us where they will. If Rome is right then Protestants are bound for eternal punishment (according to Trent) and likewise Roman Catholics if Protestants are right.

Thanks for your time.

 

[agangbern]

(Full disclosure: I am a Protestant)
Matthew 16, the “Keys” passage, is one of the primary passages used by the Magisterium to establish its right of infallible interpretation of the Bible, although only a handful of passages have been “infallibly” interpreted.

And may I present another basis of Church’s infallibility: 1Tim 3:15, the church is the pillar and mainstay of the truth.

 

[Good_Fella]

(Full disclosure: I am a Protestant)

Truth (and souls) are at stake, so we all should be willing to check this stuff out for ourselves and let the facts lead us where they will. If Rome is right then Protestants are bound for eternal punishment (according to Trent) and likewise Roman Catholics if Protestants are right.

Thanks for your time.

Your being Protestant is not a “full disclosure”. There are over 25,000 orthodox, heterodox, and independent Protestant communities who differ and vary in essential doctrines. Which denomination do you belong to? Or are you merely a Bible only Christian? The fact that Protestantism contradicts our Lord’s prophetic words: “On this rock I will build my (one) Church.” it is clear whose souls are at stake and who is actually guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth.

The Deposit of Faith consists of Sacred Sacripture and Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church. Tradition comprises all the teachings of the apostles and their ordained successors in the Sacred Magisterium. Not everything the apostles taught was written in the Bible. Paul tells us that, and he tells us that our doctrines do not necessarily have to arise from what is explicitly written in Scripture. He wants us to hold on to the traditions as taught by future generations of apostles, his successors. Tradition has precedence over Scripture, for Scripture comes from Tradition. ‘Sola Scriptura’ is a false and unbiblical Protestant concept.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[andzy]

Ultimately the question here is not whether the Assumption dogma appears in Scripture. It is fairly plain that it does not. The real question in one of authority.

This is very true, but unfortunately something many Protestants (at least in my experience) don’t realize.

For the Roman Catholic person, this is the Magisterium. Whatever the Magisterium says is dogma must be followed, or the anathema is pronounced. Matthew 16, the “Keys” passage, is one of the primary passages used by the Magisterium to establish its right of infallible interpretation of the Bible, although only a handful of passages have been “infallibly” interpreted. From a logical standpoint this is circular reasoning. The Magisterium claims the right of infallible interpretation and uses that passage as proof. But it must already have an infallible ability to interpret Scripture in order to say that its interpretation of that passage is the correct and only possible interpretation. They must assume infallibility in order to infallibly interpret the passage that they claim proves they have the right of infallible interpretation.

Not true. The Church does not draw its authority from this (or any other) passage. The Scripture is used only to support the authority, not prove it. It was established (maybe not the right word in this context) long before the Scripture was "compiled’ (canonized). The authority of the Church comes from the Apostles (as the Church is apostolic).
And in general, the goal of the authority of Magisterium is NOT to interpret the Scripture, but to teach the Truth to the people. Interpreting the Scripture is only a part of it, hence the reason why so few verses have been interpreted infallibly. (This is a little different view than what most Protestants have.)

The Roman Catholic Church believes in sola scriptura as well, but just for the passages that they think establish infallibility. If that foundational assumption falls then the entire system falls.

Not true, see above.

The members of the Magisterium must use the same methods, tools and rules of hermeneutics that any other scholar would use to interpret written works. They are also able, as sinful creatures, to bring into their interpretations whatever preconceived notions they may have. Every person has that tendency. We trust that the Lord would not lead us into falsehood, but so does the Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witness.

Yes, and that has been evident in the history of the Church many times. However, we trust the Lord’s promise that He will always guide the Church and be with her. Therefore we can distinguish between infallibility of teachings and fallibility/sinfulness of people proclaiming those teachings at the same time.

If Rome is right then Protestants are bound for eternal punishment (according to Trent) and likewise Roman Catholics if Protestants are right.

Not quite true, as the Catholic Church doesn’t say that all Protestants will go to hell, and neither do many Protestants say that about Catholics.

Peace.

 

[agangbern]

deleted by poster…

 

[guanophore]

(Full disclosure: I am a Protestant)
Ultimately the question here is not whether the Assumption dogma appears in Scripture. IThe real question in one of authority.

Yes, I agree.

The Magisterium claims the right of infallible interpretation and uses that passage as proof. But it must already have an infallible ability to interpret Scripture in order to say that its interpretation of that passage is the correct and only possible interpretation. They must assume infallibility in order to infallibly interpret the passage that they claim proves they have the right of infallible interpretation.

I think you are leaving Jesus out of the picture here. The Authority of the Church does not rest on scripture, though scripture does reflect it. The Authority comes from Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church believes in sola scriptura as well, but just for the passages that they think establish infallibility. If that foundational assumption falls then the entire system falls.

You are missing some aspects of Catholic teaching. Catholics base their teaching on the Apostolic Preaching. Over the course of time, some of that teaching was committed to writing, and some centuries after the Apostles passed, it was drawn into a canon (the NT). However, the infallibility of theChurch is not based upon the scriptures (the Church predated and produced them) but on Jesus.

I agree, however that if the Church were to base the infallibility ont he scriptures the whole foundation would fail. Fortunately, the foundation is Christ, the cornerstone. Author and finisher of our faith.

The members of the Magisterium must use the same methods, tools and rules of hermeneutics that any other scholar would use to interpret written works.

Acutally, this is not entirely true. Since we have an unbroken line of succession to the Apostles, and the Divine Deposit of faith present in Sacred Tradition, we have tools and rules that those separated from this don’t have.

They are also able, as sinful creatures, to bring into their interpretations whatever preconceived notions they may have. Every person has that tendency. We trust that the Lord would not lead us into falsehood, but so does the Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witness. Mormons ask that people pray to God about whether the Book of Mormon is true and they will receive the “burning in the bosom”, which will tell them it is true. What is the difference between that and eating some bad chili the night before? But no self-respecting Roman Catholic or Protestant would use an emotional argument to prove that the Book of Mormon is not the Word of God. He would provide logical argumentation backed with evidence. Otherwise it is just an endless ping-pong match between each person’s favorite “authorities”.

The difference here is that Catholics interpret in the light of Apostolic Teachings. Therefore, any person reading, if they come up with an interpretation that is not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching, knows that he is lacking some information and insight into the writings.

Looking at the references by the Apostle Paul to the “traditions” he had passed on to the Thessalonians, I have yet to see any scholar produce a definitive and defensible list of what those traditions were, apart from what Paul himself wrote in the letters. If anyone reading this thread has access to such a list please post a link to it so everyone can read it for himself.

Here we go again looking for a “list”! This amazes me. The Way taught by Paul is a way of life. It is a way of relating to God, and to the world. The Kingdom of Heaven is not about a “list”. It is a world view that has been preserved through Apostolic Succession. One of the aspects of that world view is that the Sacred Writing was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition which produced it. It is that separation that creates questions such as this…looking for lists.

Given the number of references to particular ancient works I assume everyone here is willing to research original source materials and not just take someone’s word for it.

I hope so! Anyone who studies the History of Christianity will eventually come to the conclusion that the NT Church was Catholic.

Truth (and souls) are at stake, so we all should be willing to check this stuff out for ourselves and let the facts lead us where they will. If Rome is right then Protestants are bound for eternal punishment (according to Trent) and likewise Roman Catholics if Protestants are right.

I don’t know why you say this. This is a misunderstanding. This is not what the Church teaches.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2705917]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It seems to me then that catholics are in no better position to understand the scriptures than protestants who must study the scriptures to determine what it means and do not have a Magesterim giving us an infallible interpretation.
Quote:

guanophore
To the extent that we all have a responsibility to study and show ourselves approved, then yes, we all are expected to work hard at understanding and practicing the Word. However, Catholics have the advantage of a sure guide in the case of confusion.

What “sure guide”? If i asked you what a particular verse meant you could not tell me since the church has never infallibly interpreted it. For example, where has the church infallibly interpreted a single verse in scripture in regards to Mary’s assumption?

 

[guanophore]

What “sure guide”?

Our sure Guide is the HS, as manifested in the Teaching Authority of the Church, Appointed and empowered by Jesus to shepherd the faithful. This Guide is infallible, as Jesus intended it to be, and that is why it can function as the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (Jesus). He is not separate from the Church He founded on the Apostle Peter.

If i asked you what a particular verse meant you could not tell me since the church has never infallibly interpreted it.

This is a misrepresentation, ja4. Misrepresentation (deliberate) is against the forum rules, so be warned.

In fact you have been advised repeatedly that the Church teaches the Gospel of Christ transmitted to us by the Apostles. You have been told that the Holy Scriptures are taken from that Teaching, and that none of the verses in the Bible contradict the Church Teaching.

You have also been told that the Church has infallibly interpreted verses, such as “hail, full of grace” means that she is without sin. however, you reject these interpretations in favor of your own, separated from Apostolic Teaching.

For example, where has the church infallibly interpreted a single verse in scripture in regards to Mary’s assumption?

The teaching of the Assumption is not based in Scripture, as you well know, but in the portion of Divine Revelation you have rejected. You will not be able to find biblical support for any of these Catholic Teachings, because you have been taught to read the Bible without the benefit of Apostolic Teaching. It is not your fault.

 

[andzy]

What “sure guide”? If i asked you what a particular verse meant you could not tell me since the church has never infallibly interpreted it. For example, where has the church infallibly interpreted a single verse in scripture in regards to Mary’s assumption?

Justasking4, you have to understand, that it is NOT the purpose of Magisterium to interpret various Bible verses. It is an important distinction: Catholics are NOT Sola Scriptura believers, therefore it is not absolutely important to have each Bible verse interpreted. The purpose of the Magisterium is to guide the people into the Truth, and make sure that people do not stray from it. The Magisterium must provide teachings on faith and morals (what is right and what is wrong), not what exactly each verse means.
After all, it is not even possible to do that, because so many verses have multiple layers of interpretation. And even if the Church did that, wouldn’t you then accuse her of being oppressive?
Once again: it is not for the Magisterium to show how particular Bible passages support Church teachings (but for the apologets).

 

[misslollipops]

.

The Deposit of Faith consists of Sacred Sacripture and Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church. Tradition comprises all the teachings of the apostles and their ordained successors in the Sacred Magisterium. Not everything the apostles taught was written in the Bible. Paul tells us that, and he tells us that our doctrines do not necessarily have to arise from what is explicitly written in Scripture. He wants us to hold on to the traditions as taught by future generations of apostles, his successors. Tradition has precedence over Scripture, for Scripture comes from Tradition. ‘Sola Scriptura’ is a false and unbiblical Protestant concept.

Mark7:6-13

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men**—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”**

 

[richardwy]

sorry guys for being a little “upfront”, but i am a Protestant attending a catholic school. i hear that catholics teach that “mary assended body and soul to heaven before she died”.

hmmmm, where do catholics get this idea from? i mean, as far as i am concerned, the Bible never mentions this. and, isnt that the only source of christian knowledge? .

Nope. Ask yourself what Christians did for Christian knowledge before the Bible existed

 

[guanophore]

Mark7:6-13

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men**—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. **10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

miss, you are confusing traditions of men for Sacred Traditions. They are two different things.

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4, you have to understand, that it is NOT the purpose of Magisterium to interpret various Bible verses. It is an important distinction: Catholics are NOT Sola Scriptura believers, therefore it is not absolutely important to have each Bible verse interpreted. The purpose of the Magisterium is to guide the people into the Truth, and make sure that people do not stray from it. The Magisterium must provide teachings on faith and morals (what is right and what is wrong), not what exactly each verse means.
After all, it is not even possible to do that, because so many verses have multiple layers of interpretation. And even if the Church did that, wouldn’t you then accuse her of being oppressive?
Once again: it is not for the Magisterium to show how particular Bible passages support Church teachings (but for the apologets).

Does not the catholic church claim to be the only ones who have the authority to interpret the scriptures correctly? I’m also trying to find out if the church has done this, where can i find these infallible interpretations?

I’m constantly being accussed on these topics of misinterpreting scripture. Now, if that is true then that must mean a catholic knows exactly what the correct interpretation of a verse is to make this claim. Without this the catholic really cannot know what the correct interpretation is. All they can do is express their opinion.

 

[Gamera]

Does not the catholic church claim to be the only ones who have the authority to interpret the scriptures correctly? I’m also trying to find out if the church has done this, where can i find these infallible interpretations?

I’m constantly being accussed on these topics of misinterpreting scripture. Now, if that is true then that must mean a catholic knows exactly what the correct interpretation of a verse is to make this claim. Without this the catholic really cannot know what the correct interpretation is. All they can do is express their opinion.

Your question is, if the Catholic Church is the only authoritative intepreter of Scripture, then where’s the Church’s list of “infallibly interpreted Bible verses?”

Infallible statements are statements which define doctrine (for example, “Jesus is divine”), not statements which interpret specific Bible verses (for example, “John 1:1 means Jesus is divine”).

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches authoritatively what Scripture means. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is such an authoritative document, and it contains interpretations of many Scripture verses.

It is not, however, written in the format of a Bible study guide, going through each verse in chronological order and making an infallible proclamation that, “this verse means X.” The problem with doing it that way would be that a verse can have more than one meaning. For instance, “Give us this day our daily bread.” That verse reasonably could be interpreted to mean actual earthly food, or our daily earnings from our day’s work, or the Eucharist, or spiritual guidance, or some other form of “food.” “Infallibility” doesn’t mean that God dictates to the Pope or the Bishops every meaning of each verse. Rather, infallibility is a negative attribute, merely preventing the teaching of error. Therefore, infallibility would not enable the Church to define everything God meant by a certain verse, all the possible applications and nuances of the words. Infallibility only protects from error, it isn’t the same as inspiration. So for that reason, the Church generally doesn’t undertake to comment infallibly that “this verse means such-and-such.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Does not the catholic church claim to be the only ones who have the authority to interpret the scriptures correctly? I’m also trying to find out if the church has done this, where can i find these infallible interpretations?

The Church does have the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. The Assumption is infallibility declare in the document Munificentissimus Deus. It defined ex-cathedra by Pope XII, the dogma of the Assumption.

I’m constantly being accussed on these topics of misinterpreting scripture. Now, if that is true then that must mean a catholic knows exactly what the correct interpretation of a verse is to make this claim. Without this the catholic really cannot know what the correct interpretation is. All they can do is express their opinion.

By what authority do you go to tell your intrepretation of Scripture is correct?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the following on interpreting Scripture:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be **especially attentive “to the content and unity **of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has** been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern **in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the **Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit **who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#134

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2818759]

The Church does have the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

Doesn’t the catholic church claim to be the “only ones” to have the authority to interpret scripture?

The Assumption is infallibility declare in the document Munificentissimus Deus

. It defined ex-cathedra by Pope XII, the dogma of the Assumption.

By what authority do you go to tell your intrepretation of Scripture is correct?
i consult a number of sources if need be. Most of the scriptures is quite clear though. Would you agree?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the following on interpreting Scripture:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be **especially attentive “to the content and unity **of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has** been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern **in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the **Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit **who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#134

Good advice here.

 

[Gamera]

---

Mark7:6-13

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men**—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. **10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

“Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle,” 2 Thes. 2:15.

Tradition (with a capitol “T”) means the Apostles’ preaching, not traditions of men (with a small “t”) which the Pharisees exalted above God’s word in the verse you quote. Tradition, with a capitol T, is part of God’s word equal to the Bible, as 1 Thes 2:13 plainly states.

“We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers,” 1 Thes. 2:13.

“Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us,” 2 Tim 1:13-14.

Mary’s Assumption is tradition, with a capitol “T” and therefore God’s word. It is not a tradition of men, with a small “t.” The verse you quote therefore is inapplicable.

 

[misslollipops]

---

“Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle,” 2 Thes. 2:15.

Tradition (with a capitol “T”) means the Apostles’ preaching, not traditions of men (with a small “t”) which the Pharisees exalted above God’s word in the verse you quote. Tradition, with a capitol T, is part of God’s word equal to the Bible, as 1 Thes 2:13 plainly states.

“We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers,” 1 Thes. 2:13.

“Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us,” 2 Tim 1:13-14.

Mary’s Assumption is tradition, with a capitol “T” and therefore God’s word. It is not a tradition of men, with a small “t.” The verse you quote therefore is inapplicable.

The ‘t’ in your first quote is a SMALL t(2thes2:15)
I wonder why. Do you want to rethink your last statement about t’s

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, then, Miss L, if St. Paul used a ‘small t’ there, and Jesus used a small t in refering to the Pharisees, then either they are both refering to the same TYPE of ‘tradition’ (and then Scripture would be contradictory, as Jesus CONDEMNED it and St. Paul is telling us to ACCEPT IT). . .or there is more than ONE type of tradition.

You tell US. Is the tradition that Jesus condemned the same that St. Paul tells us to hold fast to?

If yes, why did St. Paul disobey Jesus?

If NOT. . .then you YOURSELF acknowledge that there are two DIFFERENT traditions at least in Scripture.

Maybe you don’t want to call them ‘big T’ and ‘little T’. But you DO have to differentiate between them, don’t you???

Seems to me that you tend to strain at the gnats and swallow the camels pretty regularly here. . .