How many sources of revelation exist?

[NoelFitz]

In school I learned there are two sources of revelation, which are scripture and tradition.

Now since Vatican II and Dei Verbum only one is considered,namely scripture as interpreted by the Church. Some claim there are three, being scripture, tradition and the magisterium. I have also heard of four: scripture, tradition, the magisterium and the liturgy. Finally I heard it claimed there are many, including scripture, tradition, the magisterium, liturgy and others.

Which is correct? How many sources of revelation are there and what are they? I would appreciate references.

[‘Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.’ (Dei Verbum)]

 

[adgloriam]

I thought the source of revelation was God thus you can count 1 or 3 or both.

Or you could say the source are the 73 books, which can be counted as 1.

Or you could add the church’s tradition which is made up of a countless host of saints and faithful over the ages that in their relationship with God contributed ongoing.

 

[NoelFitz]

Or you could say the source are the 73 books, which can be counted as 1.

This sounds like sola scriptura.
God bless.

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

Or you could say the source are the 73 books, which can be counted as 1.

This sounds like sola scriptura.
God bless.

There were 3 sentences taken as a whole.

 

[rom]

Of course, the ultimate source of Revelation is God.

The proximate source, and the Catholic’s Rule of Faith, is Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture, as interpreted by the Magisterium.

Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture are the two constitutive sources of Revelation. The Magisterium is not a constitutive source, but only an interpretative source of Revelation.

The Magisterium does not produce or teach a new revelation; it merely interprets and defines revelation already contained in Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture.

Revelation started as Sacred Tradition, because it was originally handed down by oral transmission. However, some of the same truths were eventually written down and became Holy Scripture. So, one may say that Holy Scripture was once a part of Sacred Tradition, too; it is that part of Sacred Tradition that was committed into writing by the inspired writers. Today, people often use the word “Sacred Tradition” to refer only to that part of Tradition that was not committed into writing. So, Sacred Tradition + Holy Scripture = Revelation, or the total deposit of faith, depositum fidei.

 

[NoelFitz]

The proximate source, and the Catholic’s Rule of Faith, is Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture , as interpreted by the Magisterium .

Rom,
many thanks.
I am confused.
As ‘The KIng and I’ has it:
There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know
Very often find confusion
In conclusion, I concluded long ago.

Do you have a reference for your claim?
Is the ‘magisterium’ the same as the ‘Church’ in the context you use?
Is your view one prior to Vat II and Dei Verbum?

In the early Church (the Apostolic Fathers) Scripture was understood as the Old Testament.

I see in the CCC:
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.

So I would like to hold in the One Source Theory:
The source of reveltion is sacred scripture, as interpreted by the Church.

In this the magisterium and liturgy are implicitly included, as is tradition.

 

[rom]

Do you have a reference for your claim?

Yes, CCC #82, which says:

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 honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (Italics added).

Is the ‘magisterium’ the same as the ‘Church’ in the context you use?

Yes. The Magisterium (from the Latin “magister,” which means teacher) stands for the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.

Is your view one prior to Vat II and Dei Verbum?

The teaching is the same before and after Vatican II. The Papal Encyclicals just prior to Vatican II said the same things.

In the early Church (the Apostolic Fathers) Scripture was understood as the Old Testament.

True, but Holy Scripture wasn’t finished yet at the time. It was only partly finished. Holy Scripture is finished only after the death of the last Apostle, which was St. John the Evangelist. However, the “canon” (or list of inspired writings) was not decided until the fourth century A.D.

So I would like to hold in the One Source Theory:
The source of reveltion is sacred scripture, as interpreted by the Church.

When the CCC said that Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture come together “to form one thing,” it meant that together they constitute one deposit of faith, but it was never intended by the CCC to blur the distinction between Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. They are two distinct proximate sources coming from one ultimate source, which is God Himself.

In this the magisterium and liturgy are implicitly included, as is tradition.

Before the death of the last Apostle the Magisterium consisted of the St. Peter, the Apostles and the bishops whom thy ordained. Their teachings constitute Sacred Tradition. However, after the death of the last Apostle, public revelation has closed. The Church continues to exercise its Teaching Authority down the centuries, but not to produce or teach anything new, but to serve as interpreter, guardian and keeper of the faith.

The Liturgy is not strictly part of Sacred Tradition, but is considered, like the writings of the Fathers, as witnesses and monuments of Sacred Tradition.

 

[NoelFitz]

Rom,
Many thanks for you detailed, sound and clear reply, which has clarified issues for me, and I am truly grateful.

Clearly you quote from the CCC, which maintains that both Scripture and Tradition are valid today.

The magisterium does not really equal the Church as it is the teaching authority of the Church. I am not part of the Magisterium, but I am part of the Church, the people of God.

You clearly hold that Vat II did not introduce new teaching, thus the hermeneutic of continuity, as supported By B XVI, is relevant.

You also clearly support that there is one deposit of faith. This is vital, thanks for your sound statement.

Finally, following Blessed J H Newman doctrine develops, as seen in the definitions of infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

So, in summary, you have clarified parts of my faith for me.

Thank you again, and God bless.

 

[rom]

You are welcome. Glad to be of help.

I also have a website where I discussed same and other related topics. The website is still under construction, but I published it already because there are already many pages finished and could be useful to others. I cannot post my website here because it will be considered spam. However, if you click my username at the upper left hand corner of this post, you will see a link to my website. Please check it out. You might find some helpful materials there. No donate button. It’s all FREE.

 

[Joe_5859]

Now since Vatican II and Dei Verbum only one is considered,namely scripture as interpreted by the Church.

Why do you think Dei Verbum says this?

Dei Verbum specifically says “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (DV 10)