How sufficient is the Scripture?

[Beaver]

But it is not for them to have a vague familiarity with words of Scripture; they have discovered the alarming fact that thier Adversary knows them too. They have been warned about the incredible subtlety of evil, how the Deceiver pretends to be concerned with human good only to lead humankind to self-destruction, how he can cite the Scriptures to pass himself off as a angle of light. Long ago we had heard that the sword of the Spirit given them to ward off the Adversary was the word of God; today they are relieved they are amoung a community of warriors who can teach them how to wield it correctly if the Deciever seek to turn it against them.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

We deny that tradition is a separate source of the communication of the message of the Gospel, but a parallel source that is true to the degree that it adheres to the message of Scripture.

Hope everyone is doing well today. I am actually teaching on this tonight.

Michael

To abide by this, one falls into circular reasoning: Scripture say thus, because it is tradition, and tradition is thus because it is in the Scriptures.

The Magesterium is an authoritative body that interprets the definative meaning of Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Me and you are going to be the cause of the Great Reuniting if we keep it up!

If we don’t starve to death from fasting and praying for it…

Speaking of which, did you know that a great many Catholics begin their day with a prayer for just that? It’s called the Morning Offering and there are several different ones, but the one that I use does ask God “for the reunion of all Christians.”

Pax vobiscum,

 

[mtr01]

st_felicity:

To abide by this, one falls into circular reasoning: Scripture say thus, because it is tradition, and tradition is thus because it is in the Scriptures.

The Magesterium is an authoritative body that interprets the definative meaning of Scripture and Tradition.

Your post demonstrates the superiority of the spoken word to the written word when it comes to instruction. The written word cannot clarify itself, or correct the reader. The written word cannot say to the reader, “wait a minute John Doe, that’s not what I meant.” If the written word was a superior method of instruction, then school would be nothing more than handing out textbooks and telling students to read. Instead, we have teachers to explain the textbooks.

This is the role of the Magesterium. It is the God-authorized teacher which interprets the “textbook” and corrects the “student” when he or she misunderstands.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:

This is the role of the Magesterium. It is the God-authorized teacher which interprets the “textbook” and corrects the “student” when he or she misunderstands.

Yes. It is inevitably about people.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Ok…so from this portion of your argument one could claim that “the Last Temptation of Christ” is an interpretation of Scripture–yes? So who decides that it is a “proper” or “improper” interpretation. Many would argue the interpretation to be “culturally acceptable” but not sound Christian theology. You say something must “adhere to the message of Scripture” --Who decides what message is correct?

Who decides on the interpretation? The same people that decide on the interpretation of your catechism and the Magisterium. Sometimes it is clear, sometimes it is tough and there are disagreements . . . hey, this thead itself shows that there are many disagreements among Roman Catholics on this issue. Those who “recognize his voice.”

Michael

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Now on this part–I don’t disagree so much as say it’s missing the “interpreting body”–the Magesterium. The quote you have above is very similar to what the Catechism says, sans the teaching offices of the Church.

CCC 95:
“It is clear therefore that , in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that** one of them cannot stand without the others. **Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

(my emphasis)

Actually the position of Evangelicals and Orthodox emphasizes the priority of Scripture and that tradition is keep in check by Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura).

Read it again and I will add my emphasis:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that **Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions **to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures **in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.”
Michael*

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Who decides on the interpretation? The same people that decide on the interpretation of your catechism and the Magisterium.

Michael

What do you mean interpretation of the magesterium–They are the Pope and the bishops in union w/ the pope. The are not interpreted but rather, they interpret.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

To abide by this, one falls into circular reasoning: Scripture say thus, because it is tradition, and tradition is thus because it is in the Scriptures.

The Magesterium is an authoritative body that interprets the definative meaning of Scripture and Tradition.

Then you interpret the Magisterium!! Circular???

Actually, no this is not correct, because according to the Orthodox and Protestants, Tradition must always be keep in check by Scripture itself. This is the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”). Remember, we do not believe that tradition is infallible, only Scripture.

Read this part again:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.”

***—Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The *Dublin Agreed Statement 1984​

(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 50–51

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Actually the position of Evangelicals and Orthodox emphasizes the priority of Scripture and that tradition is keep in check by Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura).

Read it again and I will add my emphasis:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that **Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions **to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures **in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the *biblical ***message.”
Michael*
Yes, I understood the difference in emphasis, but the similarity remains that the two cannot be taken seperately–Roman Catholics contend there is a trinitarian relationship–requireing the magesterium as they that know.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

What do you mean interpretation of the magesterium–They are the Pope and the bishops in union w/ the pope. The are not interpreted but rather, they interpret.

All information, by definition, must be interpreted–no matter who it comes from. This is evidenced by all the varying interpretations of the Magisterium’s statements on “extra ecclesia nulla salus” and “invincible ignorance.” Many different interpretations of an infallible interpretation. Interesting, huh?

All information is interpreted according to the context in which the hearer recieves it. That is why all information is subject to interpretation, whether the Bible or Magisterium. We all have differing cultures, languages, backgrounds, experiences, and attitudes that contribute to the way we interpret any information. To say that the Magisterium does not need to be interpreted is niave in my opinion. But this would get us off track. You can discuss this on this thread if you would like. But I hope that you agree and understand.

Here is the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthre…hlight=michaelp

Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Actually the position of Evangelicals and Orthodox emphasizes the priority of Scripture and that tradition is keep in check by Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura).

Read it again and I will add my emphasis:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that **Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions **to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures **in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the *biblical ***message.”
Michael*
Whoa. You seem to misinterpret the quote you cite. Notice the difference in the quote between “tradition” and “Holy Tradition”. Holy Tradition will never contradict Scripture and vice-versa.

Furthermore, your equation is really way off base here (although I’m glad to see you’ve accepted that the regula fidei comes from Tradition). First of all, the quote doesn’t say Tradition is a summary of Scripture, it says that Tradition safeguards the biblical message (note biblical message does not mean Scripture per se). What your quote is saying is that the interpretation of Scripture is safeguarded by Holy Tradition. Your equation should read:

Tradition=regula fidei=safeguard against faulty Biblical interpretation

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

hey, this thead itself shows that there are many disagreements among Roman Catholics on this issue. Those who “recognize his voice.”

Michael

The difference is, though, that for Catholics, there is a body of teaching that they can return to with a single definative voice–the Magesterium! What they interpret–is THE right interpretation.

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

If we don’t starve to death from fasting and praying for it…

Speaking of which, did you know that a great many Catholics begin their day with a prayer for just that? It’s called the Morning Offering and there are several different ones, but the one that I use does ask God “for the reunion of all Christians.”

Pax vobiscum,

Sadly, I don’t pray for this much. But your example will inspire me to change.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

This is the principle of semper reformanda (“always reforming”). Remember, we do not believe that tradition is infallible, only Scripture.

Read this part again:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures in the sense that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.”

***—Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The *Dublin Agreed Statement 1984​

(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 50–51

Michael

Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected.

To hold Scripture as inerrant, and tradition in a seperate regard denys THIS part of your reference.

 

[michaelp]

Whoa. You seem to misinterpret the quote you cite. Notice the difference in the quote between “tradition” and “Holy Tradition”. Holy Tradition will never contradict Scripture and vice-versa.

In the context they are obvously the same. The first sentence is the header, the following are explainations of it. There are not two traditions of this statement.

Besides, this is an Orthodox and Protestant agreement. Don’t read it through Roman Catholic eyes.

Furthermore, your equation is really way off base here (although I’m glad to see you’ve accepted that the regula fidei comes from Tradition).

Actually, I have said that there is no difference. Tradition is the Gospel which is the Regula Fidei which is a summary of the basic message of Scripture as is the Apostle Creed.

First of all, the quote doesn’t say Tradition is a summary of Scripture, it says that Tradition safeguards the biblical message (note biblical message does not mean Scripture per se).

That is right, but it also says that Tradition is subject to Scripture. This is the point of sola Scriptura. It is not a rejection of tradition at all. It is a statment of faith that says that all traditions are subject to the testimony of Scripture.

I do understand that you don’t believe this, but you cannot misrepresent this statement that is made by Anglicans and Orthodox. It is not meant to say that Roman Catholics would agree. Most would not agree with this statement.

What your quote is saying is that the interpretation of Scripture is safeguarded by Holy Tradition. Your equation should read:

Tradition=regula fidei=safeguard against faulty Biblical interpretation.

Actually, I do agree with this. But I would say that tradition can be true, without necessarily being infallible. Infallibility implies that WE KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTIANTY that such and such tradition acurately represents the message of the Gospel. We don’t. With Scripture, we do.

So, we have a high respect for tradition, but do, like the Orthodox, believe that traditions ultimately submits to Scripture.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

The difference is, though, that for Catholics, there is a body of teaching that they can return to with a single definative voice–the Magesterium! What they interpret–is THE right interpretation.

Then it must be interpreted ad infinitum.

But the point that we need to make here is that no one agrees whether the message of Scripture is sufficient for salvation.

If you say that it is not, then you definitely part with historic Christianity that the Orthodox and Protestants adhere to, that the regula fidei (tradition) is a summary of orthodoxy taken from what is now contained in Scripture.

If you do think that it is sufficient, then Rome is not needed since salvation includes sanctification.

Pickle.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

All information, by definition, must be interpreted–no matter who it comes from. This is evidenced by all the varying interpretations of the Magisterium’s statements on “extra ecclesia nulla salus” and “invincible ignorance.” Many different interpretations of an infallible interpretation. Interesting, huh?

All information is interpreted according to the context in which the hearer recieves it. That is why all information is subject to interpretation, whether the Bible or Magisterium. We all have differing cultures, languages, backgrounds, experiences, and attitudes that contribute to the way we interpret any information. To say that the Magisterium does not need to be interpreted is niave in my opinion. But this would get us off track. You can discuss this on this thread if you would like. But I hope that you agree and understand.

Here is the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthre…hlight=michaelp

Michael

This is Deconstruction. Is there really a “there” there? I reject relativism. There is ABSOLUTE Truth somewhere–I “interpret” it to be found in the Catholic Church. You can disagree, however. One major criticism of the Church is that is too slow to evolve–that is because the Magesterium is very carful to be sure that the definitions come from the Holy Spirit and not from man. Because someone misinterprets a definative Truth, does not make Truth false.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected.

To hold Scripture as inerrant, and tradition in a seperate regard denys THIS part of your reference.

No because tradition, in this since, is a summary of the orthodox teachings of Scripture (e.g. the great Creeds). If Scripture disagrees with the Creeds, then the creeds are wrong, not Scripture.

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Then it must be interpreted ad infinitum.
.

Pickle.

Michael

There is no pickle. Truth is Truth. The Catholic Church is guarded from the gates of Hell by Christ’s promise when He established His Church. Now whether we fully grasp the Truth is each individual’s journey–but in no way is the TRUTH affected.