Church interprets scripture?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When the Apostles were alive 27 books of the Bible were not written and Tradition (whatever this means) had not been established.
It’s interesting that you express ambiguity over the meaning of Tradition but go on to make a definitive statement about it. Unfortunately your statement is incorrect. The very fact that the Apostles designated successors, and gave them their own teaching authority to preserve and spread the Gospel message, is Sacred Tradition in action.

As taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

In the apostolic preaching. . .
76
In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • *orally *“by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
  • in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.
. . . continued in apostolic succession
**77 **“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”
**78 **This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

**80 **“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission
**81 **“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“And **[Holy] **Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83
** The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles** and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Sacred Tradition (singular) as a means of transmission of the Word of God (see 81 above) is not to be confused with ordinary Church traditions:83*(cont.) *Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions (plural), born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
 
BeeSweet

I appreciate your reply.

Where in the Bible does it say:

The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church.

This is a Sacred Scripture Forum.

When the Apostles were alive 27 books of the Bible were not written and Tradition (whatever this means) had not been established.

“Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” only tells one that there is nothing contrary to faith in the book and let it be printed.
I think you are in error in this assertion, NoelFitz. It was the living tradition taught by Jesus and the apostles that produced the scriptures. Look up this thread

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=150710&highlight=scripture+is±the+basis

There you can read the history of Sacred Tradition. When you read that, you will see that Tradition had already been fully established when Jesus ascended into Heaven.
 
It was the living tradition taught by Jesus and the apostles that produced the scriptures.
guanophore- I disagree with this statement and if you bear with me, I would like to try to explain why. Some of the CCC excerpts (especially para. 81) in my post just above speak of Tradition as a means of transmission of the Word of God. Scripture, too, is a mode of transmission. Jesus is the Word, the Truth. He did not teach Tradition; he taught, he was…the Word of God. That saving Word comes to us today preserved and transmitted by Sacred Tradition and also through Sacred Scripture. There is one deposit of faith that comes to us through these two distinct modes (see para. 78).

Now look again at what the CCC says about Scripture and Tradition:For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.

Tradition did not produce Scripture. They both flow from God and then come together. The goal is the transmission of the Word. It is true that Apostolic Tradition pre-dates New Testament Scripture. However, the Church always speaks of Scripture **and **Tradition, not Scripture from Tradition. What we now call the Old Testament was recognized to be the written Word of God (Scripture) ages before Apostolic Tradition. Jesus read from it and called it fulfilled (Luke 4:16-21) before there were Apostles.

This is how I see it, anyway. 🙂
 
guanophore- I disagree with this statement and if you bear with me, I would like to try to explain why. Jesus is the Word, the Truth. He did not teach Tradition; he taught, he was…the Word of God. That saving Word comes to us today preserved and transmitted by Sacred Tradition and also through Sacred Scripture. There is one deposit of faith that comes to us through these two distinct modes (see para. 78).

Now look again at what the CCC says about Scripture and Tradition:For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.
I think we are on the same page here.
Tradition did not produce Scripture. They both flow from God and then come together. The goal is the transmission of the Word. It is true that Apostolic Tradition pre-dates New Testament Scripture. However, the Church always speaks of Scripture **and **Tradition, not Scripture from Tradition. What we now call the Old Testament was recognized to be the written Word of God (Scripture) ages before Apostolic Tradition. Jesus read from it and called it fulfilled (Luke 4:16-21) before there were Apostles.

This is how I see it, anyway. 🙂
I don’t have an arguement with this. My arguement is with those that think that scripture (especially the NT) did not come directly from the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Some of those teachings were preserved in writing, some were not. They are not meant to be separated.
 
Many thanks to all who replied.

What I had in mind is where would one find the Church’s interpretation of various parts of scripture?

PS: Do you distinguish between scripture and the Bible?
The Catechism? I was under the impression that the CC used the Catechism to interpret Scripture in accordance with their teachings.
 
Thanks to all

I do not consider the CCC a commentary on the Bible.

I consider that Cstholicas are free to interpret the Bible in any way they like, provided the interpretation is not contrary to Catholic doctrine.
 
No paarsurrey, everyone does not agree with you. The scripture was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from which it emerged. Those entrusted with the keeping of the covenants of God are those empowered to interpret the scripture correctly. The method you describe, where each interprets in a manner that is right in his own mind, is what has caused the divisions that exist today.
Hi
I am sorry I don’t agree with you, I think it is the otherway round, since scriptures are interpreted to make them as per the wrong tradition so the interpretition is far from what is described in the Sriptures, that is what has caused the divisions that exist today.Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
 
Thanks to all

I do not consider the CCC a commentary on the Bible.

I consider that Cstholicas are free to interpret the Bible in any way they like, provided the interpretation is not contrary to Catholic doctrine.
The CCC is a companion to the Bible, in that each of these helps one understand the other.

Catholics are not are not simply “free to interpret any way they like” as long as isn’t contrary to Catholic Doctrine. This is an irresponsible way to go about it, and one not seeking truth. One must seek to interpret Scripture as it was intended by the inspired author, and not “interpret anyway they like…” This is not the method that one who wanted to be a decent or good Catholic would go about business. You sound like someone who is trying to find out how to stretch the limits or water down Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top