Dei verbum and the reality of what is being expressed in the pews

[Future_Prodigy]

I have read dei verbum and am i correct in asserting that NO DOCTORINE can ever contradict the bible, or biblical principles (one reason for the importance of biblical apologetics)? Yet i always hear pew catholics saying things like “well it doesnt matter if its in the bible or not, tradition says it”

Yet i thought this was contradictive to the teaching?

 

[TOME]

Future Prodigy,
Having read Dei Verbum you should know that Divine Revelation comes to us through Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition as taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[andzy]

It’s very often that Protestants will say: “it’s not in the Bible, so we don’t have to believe it”, and then Catholics might say: “well it doesnt matter if its in the bible or not, tradition says it”. What the Catholics maybe should say instead is: “well, it doesn’t have to be in the Bible, as long as it doesn’t go against the Tradition and the Bible”.
There’s no contradiction, as the Bible actually supports following the Tradition, and doesn’t support the Sola Scriptura teaching.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

andy i agree with you

so we are right in asserting that no doctorine ever passed can go against scripture right? This is what i have got from dei verbum… even tradition can never be above scripture… but it is scriputre AND tradition

 

[Contarini]

I have read dei verbum and am i correct in asserting that NO DOCTORINE can ever contradict the bible, or biblical principles (one reason for the importance of biblical apologetics)? Yet i always hear pew catholics saying things like “well it doesnt matter if its in the bible or not, tradition says it”

Yet i thought this was contradictive to the teaching?

Why is “not being in the bible” the same thing as “contradicting the Bible”? That makes no sense to me.

However, I agree with you that it seems problematic for Catholics to say that Biblical foundations are simply irrelevant.

Edwin

 

[quiet52]

Sacred Tradition (the truths passed down by Jesus through his Church) includes what is written in the holy scriptures, but isn’t limited to what is written. Jesus instructed his first followers to bring his Word to the four corners of the earth – the bible certainly has helped to do this.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

see the last post here exemplifies what i mean… this tradition triumphalism! That is not what i read when i read dei verbum. NO TEACHING whether passed down by tradition or not can EVER contradict biblical principles (period!).

 

[Future_Prodigy]

p.s. im not implying there are dogmas out that do contradict the bible im just expressing what is said in relation to revelation/doctorines

 

[andzy]

see the last post here exemplifies what i mean… this tradition triumphalism! That is not what i read when i read dei verbum. NO TEACHING whether passed down by tradition or not can EVER contradict biblical principles (period!).

Well, the thing is that the Bible IS (part of) the Tradition. The Bible is recordings of some of oral teachings (the Tradition) that the Apostles preached. Thus it makes no sense to say that either the Bible or the Tradition is superior to the other. The only thing is that: a) quantitatively the Tradition encompasses more (the Scripture is a subset of the Tradition); b) the Tradition takes precedence when interpreting the Scripture (one cannot use personal interpretation to contrast Scripture against Tradition - that goes against the Bible, the Tradition and the common sense).
I believe that these two points (and also a reaction to most Protestants placing importance of the Scripture light years ahead of the Tradition) is why many Catholics seem to believe that the Scripture is subordinate to the Tradition (some might actually believe that, but it is incorrect).

 

[Verbum]

Hi Future,

Many Protestants have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that is not in the Bible. “If it’s not in the Bible”, then we shouldn’t believe it."

Of course, what IS in the Bible is true. But that does not mean that it’s false if it’s not in the Bible.

Having read Dei Verbum, you know that God’s revelation comes through Jesus Christ who spoke to his apostles who in turn “handed down” to us this revelation. Some of it was written down by the apostles or people close to them. This we call the New Testament. Other parts of Christ’s teaching were not written down by the apostles or people close to them. This we call Tradition, with a capital T. It is 100% part of God’s revelation through Jesus Christ, just as the written parts are.

Verbum

 

[Future_Prodigy]

yes but that same deposit of faith handed down can never contradict biblical principles… which is exactly my point, and this is not what a lot of catholics are saying themselves.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Future,

The Catholics you quoted do not say that:

**Yet I ] always hear pew [C]atholics saying things like "[W]ell it doesnt matter if it’]s in the bible or not;][T]radition says **
it"

According to this quote, they do not claim that what goes against the Bible is true. They claim that when it is handed down by Tradition, they do not have to dig up the Bible to prove it.

Verbum

 

[Future_Prodigy]

yes and thats my problem… when i read the documents i never see tradition being able to oust Scripture. It must always follow scriptural principles… it is like a security check in that tradition can never make up something contrary to scripture. So to say while its in tradition, therefore we dont need to prove it in the bible is incorrect!

 

[michael_legna]

Future Prodigy:

So to say while its in tradition, therefore we dont need to prove it in the bible is incorrect!

No, you are not thinking about it correctly. Scripture is the inerrant word of God, it cannot contradict itself and anything that contradicts it is in error. But the same thing can be said of Sacred Tradition. So we come down to the conclusion that Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict each other. Not just that Tradition cannot contradict Scripture.

Because of this we can use either source to prove something. If Tradition teaches something we do not need to prove it from Scripture. It is perfectly correct to say that “It is in Tradition, therefore we don’t need to prove it in the Bible.”

Now if someone claims that something in Tradition is contrary to something that is in Scripture that is where apologetics comes in. But since both sources are the inerrant word of God we do not have to prove the validity of something from one by comparing it to the other. This does not make one superior to the other, they are equal, it is just that they may not cover exactly the same material in every instance, so they compliment each other.

If we had to check everything in Tradition against Scripture then the doctrine of sola scriptura would be accurate and it is not.

This does not mean Tradition is able able to oust Scripture. It must always follow scriptural principles…except in those cases where it covers material Scripture does not. Then it must only avoid contradicting anything Scripture might say on it.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Future,

Sorry, I was under the impression that you accepted the presentation in Dei Verbum.

Well, if you posit that Tradition must be “checked” against Scripture, then we’re back to Sola Scriptura. Tradition then becomes mere speculation that has to be validated by Scripture.

What if you had lived around 45 AD? Most of the New Testament was not yet written, and you would not have been able to “check” the teaching against Scripture.

Jesus did not command his disciples to write anything. They chose to do so. But what if they hadn’t? Where would we be?

Verbum

 

[rwoehmke]

The assumption of course is that the interpretation being given to either scripture or tradition is not just someone’s opinion, but is vouched as correct by the teaching authority of the Pope/Church. If anyone thinks they have found a contradiction between Scripture and Tradition, it is time for them to check with how the Church interprets the matter.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

being checked against scripture is not sola scriptura at all! sola scriptura is scripture alone!!! If biblical principles are always being checked against Tradition it prevents the creation of man-made doctorines, it has nothign to do with the protestant dogma of revelation/authority!

And to cite the earliest christian church is problematic for the earliest known patristic fathers (aside from the apostles themselves) quoted Scriputre extensively… it has always played an central role in authority. It is only recently i have noticed this neglect of it again, for a triumphaliant pro-tradition stance at the expense of Scripture

 

[michael_legna]

Future Prodigy:

being checked against scripture is not sola scriptura at all! sola scriptura is scripture alone!!!

No most adherents of sola scriptura make it clear that it means “scripture alone at the top”. In other words scripture alone is the final judge of all issues of doctrine. That is why a scripture alone adherent is able to read commentaries and discuss issues with other Christians, as long as they check it against scripture as the final authority. If sola scriptura meant literally scripture alone, then they would not be able to use commentaries or even rely on pastors, which obviously does not mean that.

So yes checking Tradition against Scripture would be perfectly acceptable to a sola scriptura adherent and is not acceptable to the Catholic belief that Tradition is equally the inerrant word of God as Scriptures is.
Future Prodigy:

If biblical principles are always being checked against Tradition it prevents the creation of man-made doctorines,

But it reduces Tradition to a lesser trustworthy source than Scripture.
Future Prodigy:

it has nothign to do with the protestant dogma of revelation/authority!

No you do not understand the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
FutureProdigy:

And to cite the earliest christian church is problematic for the earliest known patristic fathers (aside from the apostles themselves) quoted Scriputre extensively…

But they were quoting these writings before they were determined to be Scripture and it was these very quotes and the use of these same writings in the Liturgy which was used as evidence that these writing should be considered Scripture.

Note both of these actions, quoting of writings and use in Liturgy are part of Sacred Tradition.
FutureProdigy:

It is only recently i have noticed this neglect of it again, for a triumphaliant pro-tradition stance at the expense of Scripture

Then your ability to notice is flawed - because the Catholic Church does not neglect Scripture as its liturgy is replete with quotes of Scripture, the footnotes of its Catechism are full of Scripture references and its members are still granted an indulgence for reading Scripture at least 15 minutes a day.

The Church also does not use Sacred Tradition at the expense of Scripture. It cannot possibly do this because in order to use one thing at the expense of another there must be contradiction between the two things in questions. Traditions does not contradict Scripture. If you think it does please show an example of such a contradiction or else drop this idea that Tradition is being used at the expense of Scripture. This should be easy to do since you have just claimed that you noticed this happening.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

wow easy, you can stop with this condescending BS! If you took the time to read ANY of this post you would realize i never ONCE said anything about a doctorine or practice being in tradition that is not in Scriputre. SO do not put words in my mouth!

AND I said it was the pew catholics, not the teaching magisterium, that are presenting this pro Tradition stance.

“so we are right in asserting that no doctorine ever passed can go against scripture right? This is what i have got from dei verbum… even tradition can never be above scripture… but it is scriputre AND tradition”

 

[michael_legna]

FutureProdigy:

wow easy, you can stop with this condescending BS!

I am sorry you felt I was being condescending, I have looked over my post and do not see where I said anything of that nature. Still if you took it that way I apologize. I admit I did correct you on a couple of points, but if you take every correction you receive in life as being condescending you will be very unhappy throughout it.
FutureProdigy:

If you took the time to read ANY of this post you would realize i never ONCE said anything about a doctorine or practice being in tradition that is not in Scriputre. SO do not put words in my mouth!

I also do not see where I suggested that you were claiming that there were doctrines in Tradition that were not in Scripture. I did ask a question to clarify your position, but I did so because I did not know your stance on this issue and could think of no other reason one would feel the need to check Tradition against Scripture, that is all.
Future Prodigy:

"so we are right in asserting that no doctorine ever passed can go against scripture right?

No dogma, slight difference but an important one.
FutureProdigy:

This is what i have got from dei verbum… even tradition can never be above scripture… but it is scriputre AND tradition"

But then even Scripture can never be above Tradition either. That being said, we can conclude that there is never any reason to check Tradition against Scripture, since they are both equally inerrant. You don’t check to equally accepted sources against one another.

So if this idea of not needing to check Tradition against Scripture is what you think you hear from the pews, then they indeed have it right and are in full agreement with the Magisterium. It turns out it is not a pro-Tradition stance at all. At least no more pro- than their stance on Scripture too, since I suspect these same pew members accept the Church’s position on the inerrancy of Scripture as well.