G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**## I’m delighted that you recogniose the quotation
. I have a whole book of them. And I hope I am not forgetful of these dangers. ## **
- Status
. I have a whole book of them. And I hope I am not forgetful of these dangers. ## **
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Your fallible understanding of truth is not compelling to Catholics. The constant teaching of the Catholic Church, vested with teaching authority by God, for whom it is true to say, “He who hears you, hears me” is the standard of Catholic faith. Your thesis is more consistent with Luther than with Catholicism. One of these days, you will realize this and either become Protestant or change your epistemology.
**## That being so, why not show me what is wrong in that post ? **
**Of course I’m fallible - that doesn’t mean I can never spot a faulty bit of reasoning. It doesn’t mean that Popes can say any old thing that they feel like. **
It’s all very well to quote Saints on the Pope - but the events of the twentieth century have shown what happened when obedience is divorced from truth and reason and ethics. The Pope is not an ecclesiastical Fuehrer or Duce, and I don’t wish to have anything to do with the type of Catholicism which takes him for one. Papal totalitarianism is no more truly Christian that secular totalitarianism. Not all obedience is “Nuremberg obedience” - even if that were to be, in effect, what Rome wanted. Of course we are to be obedient. Christ was, and what suited Him, must suit us. But that is no reason to act as though reason were an infirmity, or denying nonsense were a crime. ##
S
SaintJVMan
Guest
How does one judge what the writer intended to affirm?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Very carefully.
And if you are Catholic, always in union with the solemn and ordinary teachings of the magisterium.The following is from the Pontifical Bible Commission promulgated and approved by Pope John Paul II. It’s lengthy, but it describes several methods of Biblical interpretation, discusses strengths and weaknesses, and asserts that historical critical methods are necessary but insufficient by themselves. Diachronic methods are also indispensable for exegesis. Synchronic approaches, while valuable, are not sufficient.
of the BibleInterpretation
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Firstly, inerrancy is a dogma, and as such is part of dogmatic theology, not Scritpural exegesis. For example, one cannot prove exegetically what the contents of Scripture are. That’s a question that cannot be answered by exegesis, but only through dogmatic theology.
Secondly, I did discuss specifics. Fr. Brown says Job denies an afterlife. I asked where this is proved and gave Scripture and commentary from both Catholic and Protestant sources that shows Fr. Brown’s thesis is far from proved.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Exegesis is “educated guessing” which can never be practiced without bias. It begins with supposition, and builds upon suppositions to propose further opinions. They may be scholarly opinions, but they are nonetheless still opinions. In the end, the variant conclusions of exegetes are merely speculative. Speculative biblical theories are no substitute for Catholic doctrine.
As for inerrancy and its dogmatic character, even Fr. Brown admits, "***without confining the inerrancy of Scripture to matters of faith and morals (a formulation condemned in earlier Roman statements), “the Theological Commission [of Vatican II] … keeps the way open for a new interpretation of inerrancy.” ***(Brown. R., *The Critical Meaning of the Bible, *NY, Paulist Press, 1981, pg. 19, citing A. Grillmeier, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Chapter III,” in *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, *ed. H. Vorgrimler, NY, Herder and Herder,1969, pg. 214)
So, one can propose new interpretations of inerrancy, as Fr. Ignace de la Potterie has, so long as it remains within the bounds of Catholic doctrine. One cannot propose formulations already definitely condemned and still remain faithful to Catholic doctrine.
Scriptural exegesis cannot be divorced from a priori views of Scripture, even if scholars like to pretend otherwise. Either you have an a priori (Catholic) view that Scripture is inerrant, or you have an a priori (heretical) view that it is contains errors. Your hermeneutic will be influence by your a priori view of Scripture, and in the final analysis, one has simply substituted one biased view for another. The real question pertains to which biased view does one subscribed to, which biased view is more authentically apostolic: 1) the view constantly believed by Christianity of all generations, universally, and with the unanimous consent of the early Church fathers (inerrancy), or 2) the biased view of modernism (errancy). I hold to the former *a priori Catholic *view.
Fr. Raymond Brown’s earliest writings seem to have held the Catholic view. That was before he seemingly became enamored by the bias of Protestant exegetes from Union Theological Seminary, who thought they could remove all bias to “scientifically” study Scripture. For example, in 1964, Fr. Brown was rather critical of the historical-critical method, stating: “***What we believe to be true by faith we cannot admit to be false by history.” ***(Brown, R., *Catholic Biblical Quarterly, *vol. 26, 1964, pg. 24). He also asserted, “***We Catholic exegetes have to remind ourselves that exegesis should be related to the salvation of souls” ***(ibid., pg. 25). And, “***I wonder if the burden of proof does not really lie on those who wish to show that the statements attributed to Jesus are inauthentic.” (ibid). "***Catholic Biblical sholars who have had to learn to read scripture without scholastic glasses are going to be somewhat dubious about substituting another pair of spectacles made in Germany[referring to the Tubegin University, Germany, where historical-critical exegesis has its origin].
So if one is biased toward women ordination, for example, one might conclude that 1 Cor 14:33-34 is not genuinely Pauline but was added later as a polemic against the Montanist movement where women prophets played an important role. If so, it would be understood as uninspired and can be said to be in error, so as to permit women ordination. This theory is actual, and instead of rejected it as having no basis in Catholic tradition, Fr. Brown, being biased toward women ordination, offers this thesis saying that it needs “further study.” Seems to me Fr. Brown has substituted his a priori Catholic view of Scritpure for "another pair of spectacles made in Germany."
As for inerrancy and its dogmatic character, even Fr. Brown admits, "***without confining the inerrancy of Scripture to matters of faith and morals (a formulation condemned in earlier Roman statements), “the Theological Commission [of Vatican II] … keeps the way open for a new interpretation of inerrancy.” ***(Brown. R., *The Critical Meaning of the Bible, *NY, Paulist Press, 1981, pg. 19, citing A. Grillmeier, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Chapter III,” in *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, *ed. H. Vorgrimler, NY, Herder and Herder,1969, pg. 214)
So, one can propose new interpretations of inerrancy, as Fr. Ignace de la Potterie has, so long as it remains within the bounds of Catholic doctrine. One cannot propose formulations already definitely condemned and still remain faithful to Catholic doctrine.
Scriptural exegesis cannot be divorced from a priori views of Scripture, even if scholars like to pretend otherwise. Either you have an a priori (Catholic) view that Scripture is inerrant, or you have an a priori (heretical) view that it is contains errors. Your hermeneutic will be influence by your a priori view of Scripture, and in the final analysis, one has simply substituted one biased view for another. The real question pertains to which biased view does one subscribed to, which biased view is more authentically apostolic: 1) the view constantly believed by Christianity of all generations, universally, and with the unanimous consent of the early Church fathers (inerrancy), or 2) the biased view of modernism (errancy). I hold to the former *a priori Catholic *view.
Fr. Raymond Brown’s earliest writings seem to have held the Catholic view. That was before he seemingly became enamored by the bias of Protestant exegetes from Union Theological Seminary, who thought they could remove all bias to “scientifically” study Scripture. For example, in 1964, Fr. Brown was rather critical of the historical-critical method, stating: “***What we believe to be true by faith we cannot admit to be false by history.” ***(Brown, R., *Catholic Biblical Quarterly, *vol. 26, 1964, pg. 24). He also asserted, “***We Catholic exegetes have to remind ourselves that exegesis should be related to the salvation of souls” ***(ibid., pg. 25). And, “***I wonder if the burden of proof does not really lie on those who wish to show that the statements attributed to Jesus are inauthentic.” (ibid). "***Catholic Biblical sholars who have had to learn to read scripture without scholastic glasses are going to be somewhat dubious about substituting another pair of spectacles made in Germany[referring to the Tubegin University, Germany, where historical-critical exegesis has its origin].
So if one is biased toward women ordination, for example, one might conclude that 1 Cor 14:33-34 is not genuinely Pauline but was added later as a polemic against the Montanist movement where women prophets played an important role. If so, it would be understood as uninspired and can be said to be in error, so as to permit women ordination. This theory is actual, and instead of rejected it as having no basis in Catholic tradition, Fr. Brown, being biased toward women ordination, offers this thesis saying that it needs “further study.” Seems to me Fr. Brown has substituted his a priori Catholic view of Scritpure for "another pair of spectacles made in Germany."
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Opinions of biblical theorist are of less authority than the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. “Authority” was all that mattered to Abraham, when God told him to move his family to a place which God would reveal to him later. Abraham promptly obeyed based upon authority, not upon convincing arguments. Later he would begin to slay his own son based upon the authority of God. Abraham did not demand a convincing argument for doing so, a clever reason, did he? This is what Paul calls the “obedience of faith.” By faith, he obeyed.
You have to either believe or reject Catholic doctrine. Catholicism asserts unambiguously that Catholics owe their religious submission of intellect and will to more than just infallible dogmas defined by the solemn magisterium, but that the ordinary magisterial teachings are also Divinely guided, and that for even ordinary teachings, it is also true to say: “He who hears you hears me.” If you reject this, then I don’t see how you are being consistent with Catholic doctrine. The solemn magisterium and universal ordinary magisterium teaches infallibly. The ordinary magisterium, although not infallible (unless it is also universal), teaches with moral certainty. Infallible dogmas are believed with absolute certainty. There’s a difference between our assent owed to infallible dogmas and ordinary doctrines. To the former we owe “assent of faith,” to the latter *religiosum obsequium. *This too is a subject of Catholic dogmatic theology. We can discuss what the difference between “assent of faith” and *religiosum obsequium *is if you like, but one thing is certain, obsequium is incompatible with dissent.
If obedience to the Vicar of Christ is based upon charity, based upon the reasoning that he is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit when he formally and authoritatively teaches the universal Church, then such obedience is not blind obedience as GottleofGeer implies. We owe our obedience to the leaders placed in the care of our souls by God (cf. Heb 13:17). This obedience is based upon the divine authority given to them. Either you believe the doctrines of the Vicar of Christ are Christ’s own, or you do not. Catholicism insists upon the former.
When ordinary teaching is repeated and affirmed, having the characteristics St. Vincent de Lerin describes as the Catholic rule of faith: 1) anitquity, 2) universality, 3) consent; then it is described as the *Ordinary and Universal *teachings of the magisterium, which is infallible. Thus, *Universal Ordinary *teachings move from being “morally certain” to being “absolutely certain” (infallible dogma). The latter we owe our “assent of faith” while the former we owe our *religiosum obsequium. *To do otherwise is to reject what is binding upon all Catholics according to universal canon law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and *Lumen Gentium, *the Constitution on the Church.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**
itsjustdave1988:
Secondly, I did discuss specifics. Fr. Brown says Job denies an afterlife. I asked where this is proved and gave Scripture and commentary from both Catholic and Protestant sources that shows Fr. Brown’s thesis is far from proved.**
**## As an exegete, trying to find out what the text actually means, he was fully entitled to his opinion. It’s not as though scholars did not correct and argue with each other - there are no all-knowing oracles in Biblical matters. **
If Father Brown had been building a dogma on a shaky piece of exegesis - that would be different. He did not pretend to be more than one scholar among others - so please don’t build up Aunt Sallies only to knock them down. Critical scholarship does not stand or fall by the inerrancy or omniscience of Fr. Brown.
Something does not have to be known beyond doubt to offer useful insights. Biblical scholarship is largely a matter of literary criticism - and there is no way of getting rid of the element of uncertainty there. Not everything can be, or needs to be, measured with mathematical exactness. Is friendship or learning any less real, for not being able to be measured in millimetres ? What is needed, is, a thorough familiarity with the texts under discussion, and with everything that can cast light on them. So pronouncements from on high that
**So it is also completely illegitimate to read back a Christian dogma into an OT passage - the correct course is to look at the text and see what it is saying, in its own context. If this means there is a real disagreement between a dogma and a passage of Scripture - so be it; it would be pretty odd if any OT book were in perfect accord with a religion not even born. **
There may well be similarities in other ways, and real continuities - but why expect every sentence in an OT book to be impeccable in its Christian orthodoxy ? One might as well expect David to profess the Nicene Creed, or Elijah to be acquainted with the works of St.Thomas. **** ##
Secondly, I did discuss specifics. Fr. Brown says Job denies an afterlife. I asked where this is proved and gave Scripture and commentary from both Catholic and Protestant sources that shows Fr. Brown’s thesis is far from proved.**
**## As an exegete, trying to find out what the text actually means, he was fully entitled to his opinion. It’s not as though scholars did not correct and argue with each other - there are no all-knowing oracles in Biblical matters. **
If Father Brown had been building a dogma on a shaky piece of exegesis - that would be different. He did not pretend to be more than one scholar among others - so please don’t build up Aunt Sallies only to knock them down. Critical scholarship does not stand or fall by the inerrancy or omniscience of Fr. Brown.
Something does not have to be known beyond doubt to offer useful insights. Biblical scholarship is largely a matter of literary criticism - and there is no way of getting rid of the element of uncertainty there. Not everything can be, or needs to be, measured with mathematical exactness. Is friendship or learning any less real, for not being able to be measured in millimetres ? What is needed, is, a thorough familiarity with the texts under discussion, and with everything that can cast light on them. So pronouncements from on high that
- relate to the texts only very remotely
- are made by people who are not even discussing those texts
- who know nothing of the fine detail of them
- who do not profess to be pronouncing on them
**So it is also completely illegitimate to read back a Christian dogma into an OT passage - the correct course is to look at the text and see what it is saying, in its own context. If this means there is a real disagreement between a dogma and a passage of Scripture - so be it; it would be pretty odd if any OT book were in perfect accord with a religion not even born. **
There may well be similarities in other ways, and real continuities - but why expect every sentence in an OT book to be impeccable in its Christian orthodoxy ? One might as well expect David to profess the Nicene Creed, or Elijah to be acquainted with the works of St.Thomas. **** ##
P
patg
Guest
Then I think you should read the stated “opinion” of the church in “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, Pontifical Biblical Commission (April 21, 1964) and, in particular, “*The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels” *byJoseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. - Woodstock College *Theological Studies *25 (1964) 386-408. Both are easily found online.
A few things which caught my eye are:
"This inspiration guarantees their Gospel truth, which is free from error. But it is also good to recall that neither the Church in her official pronouncements on the nature of inspiration, nor the theologians in their speculative treatments of it, have taught that the necessary formal effect of inspiration is historicity."
and:
"The most significant thing in the whole document, when all is said and done, is that the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
**
and finally:
"The consequence of inspiration is inerrancy, i.e., immunity from formal error in what is affirmed. The opposite of inerrancy is not simply historicity but truth. But there is poetical truth as well as historical truth, rhetorical truth as well as legal truth, mythical truth as well as the Gospel truth. If a passage in the Gospels contains historical truth, it does not simply contain it because it is inspired. The reasons for its historicity will be quite other than the inspired character of the text. The inspiration may guarantee such historical truth as is there, but it will not guarantee it any more than it would guarantee the poetic truth of the hymn to Christ in Phil 2. Its guarantee is not quantitative but qualitative and analogous. The inspired Gospel truth was intended by God to give us not simply a “remembered” account of the doctrine and life of Jesus, but a “preached” form of it, "so as to offer the Church a basis of faith and of morals" (par. X)."
**
I’ll accept that as the purpose.
P
patg
Guest
But those teachings are not constant and in fact are far from constant - even the documents you quote reflect a changing understanding - a very different understanding than the traditional “literalist” view. This is absolutely affirmed in the “Instruction Concerning the Biblical Truth of the Gospels” which I reference in a previous post.
Such an evolving understanding can not be considered "doctrine. See my other comments.
And the multiple non-religious errors in the bible have something to do with “morals” - that’s ridiculous!
It also insists that we don’t even have Christ’s own words:
“… the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists.”
What is repeated and affirmed is that this is all an evolving and developing understanding. You can’t possibly read the “Instruction Cocerning the Biblical Truth of the Gospels” and think that the concept of inerrancy in other than faith and morals is infallible doctrine.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
GottleofGeer,
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
It is not the “opinion” of Paul VI, but an instruction from him to Catholics, making clear what he “insists” upon within Catholic hermeneutics, refuting “aberrations” which are “opposed to Catholic doctrine.”
I’ve read Paul VI’s Sancta Mater Ecclesia and agree with it 100%. Do you? Because it in, he asserts that although various literary genres are used by the sacred authors, “the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it was he who preserved their author immune from all error.” He states that those who have a “wrong notion of faith, taking it that faith is indifferent to historical truth and is indeed incompatible with it” are “opposed to Catholic doctrine.”
Instead, Paul VI affirms the sacred writers “faithfully recounted [Jesus’] life and words.” The sacred writers did not transform Jesus “into a ‘mythical’ personage” and his teachings were not “distorted by reason of worship which the disciples now paid him.” Rather, they handed on “the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done.” While they may have tailored their accounts according to the needs of their hearers, consolidating, synthesizing, using different contexts, etc., “the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order … us[ing] different words to express what he said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense.”
In giving his instruction on Catholic hermeneutics, Paul VI cited extensively from Divino Afflante Spiritu, thereby affirming the “permanent validity” of this papal teaching.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Pontifical Biblical Commission (April 21, 1964) It is not the “opinion” of Paul VI, but an instruction from him to Catholics, making clear what he “insists” upon within Catholic hermeneutics, refuting “aberrations” which are “opposed to Catholic doctrine.”
I’ve read Paul VI’s Sancta Mater Ecclesia and agree with it 100%. Do you? Because it in, he asserts that although various literary genres are used by the sacred authors, “***the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it was he who preserved their author ***immune from all error.”
He states that those who have a “wrong notion of faith, taking it that faith is indifferent to historical truth and is indeed incompatible with it” are “opposed to Catholic doctrine.”
Instead, Paul VI affirms the sacred writers “faithfully recounted [Jesus’] life and words.” The sacred writers did not transform Jesus “into a ‘mythical’ personage” and his teachings were not “distorted by reason of worship which the disciples now paid him.” Rather, they handed on “the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done.” While they may have tailored their accounts according to the needs of their hearers, consolidating, synthesizing, using different contexts, etc., “the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order … us[ing] different words to express what he said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense.”
In giving his instruction on Catholic hermeneutics, Paul VI cited extensively from Divino Afflante Spiritu, thereby affirming the “permanent validity” of this papal teaching. This instruction affirms the historicity of the Gospels and rejects those that would claim otherwise. Then the instruction goes on to caution Catholics to “***shun what is merely new-fangled or what is insufficiently proved,” ***affirming that Catholics are “duty bound never to depart in the slightest form the common doctrine and tradition of the Church.” He is affirming, not opposing the doctrine and tradition of the Church as taught by Divino Afflante Spiritu.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
P
patg
Guest
Then I guess the pontifical biblical commission has some pretty wrong notions. Let’s see, who has the most basis for making statements about the bible…
If the Holy Spirit was so concerned about this inerrancy stuff, maybe the Holy Spirit should have inspired someone to keep a copy of the sacred documents so we would at least know we were reading the right stuff! Since the Holy Spirit obviously didn’t do this, maybe we shouldn’t impose the requirement of inerrancy and maybe the commission’s words are inspired also…
"
So they were free to modify the exact words and events to suit their needs? That says a lot about the historical and scientific accuracy, doesn’t it? That single statement destroys every argument you have presented.
.
Too bad he doesn’t pay attention to the writings of the pontifical biblical commission. If the person who makes the authoritarian speeches would get to know the people who know and understand the bible, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Could you explain? I am unaware of anything published by the Pontifical Bible Commission that contradicts Paul VI’s Sancta Mater Ecclesia. Perhaps you do.
I tend to agree with St. Augustine in thinking the ambiguity is there purposefully, by Divine providence, such that perseverance in faith in Christ and His Holy Catholic Church can be meritorious.
What “commission’s words” are you referring to?
So they were free to modify the exact words and events to suit their needs?
Actually, no. It was to suit the needs of their audience.
Yes, and you ought to understand the authorial intent in this context, the intent of the author, which is to recount salvation history–the revelations of God, to include the deeds and teachings of the prophets, Christ, and the apostles. The intent is not to teach profane history, math, or science. God didn’t send the Holy Spirit to make us historians and scientists, but to make us Christians. Thus, although the events recounted by the sacred authors are tailored to their audience, using differing literary genres, being purposefully re-ordered, consolidated, placed in differing contexts, synthesized, etc., the Evangelists still faithfully and truthfully recounted “***the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done” ***(Santa Mater Ecclesia), without error,
maintaining the true sense of the Lord’s words and deeds. Thus, the affirmations of the sacred author are never erroneous, if properly interpreted.
How so? I’ve never said anything to the contrary. One can recount a historic event in many different ways, without destroying the historicity of the event, especially if the intent is not to simply ensure the event is remembered, but to ensure that the salvific significance of the event is understood. It’s called teaching. When teaching about Christianity, making sure the exact words and exact order it of little importance compared to ensuring the audience understand what the words and deeds of Christ mean to them.
Again, which writings does Paul VI disregard?
S
SaintJVMan
Guest
How would you recommend explaining this to a protestant?Very carefully.
The following is from the Pontifical Bible Commission promulgated and approved by Pope John Paul II. It’s lengthy, but it describes several methods of Biblical interpretation, discusses strengths and weaknesses, and asserts that historical critical methods are necessary but insufficient by themselves. Diachronic methods are also indispensable for exegesis. Synchronic approaches, while valuable, are not sufficient.
Interpretation of the Bible
P
patg
Guest
I wish I understood how you can sound so much like you are agreeing with me and at the same time deny that you are.
- I agree that the essence and sense of the writings are inerrant, that the teachings on faith and morals are inerrant
- We both agree that "the sacred authors are tailored to their audience, using differing literary genres, being purposefully re-ordered, consolidated, placed in differing contexts, synthesized, etc.,
“*the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done” *
with
"The Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
As I said before, the only way to reconcile this is to quote papal authority while ignoring the teachings and writings of those in the church who are charged with understanding and teaching on this subject. Every adult ed class I have attended has taught inerrancy only in faith and morals. Every priest I know teaches that. My late uncle, a Franciscan theologian, taught that. And for what its worth, in the voting on the thread here about Noah’s ark and the flood, only a third of the generally ultra-traditional members said they believed it was historical.
If everyone agrees “the events recounted by the sacred authors are tailored to their audience, using differing literary genres, being purposefully re-ordered, consolidated, placed in differing contexts, synthesized, etc.”, how is it possible to disagree on the literal historicity of the events and words?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
It depends upon the particular perspective of the Protestant. For example, some simply reject “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) as evil, which is rather odd since St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.
According to Vine’s *Expository of New Testament Words *(Protestant source):
St. Paul tells us that we are to shun those who do not hold fast to the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) that has been taught (Gk “paralambano”) by the apostles (cf. 2 Thess 3:6). Moreover, according to Scripture, these traditions are both oral and written…
“*So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (Gk "paradosis”) that you were taught (Gk “paralambano”) by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" *(2 Thess 2:15).
According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):
So, in past discussion with Protestants, I’ve explained that tradition is an “extra biblical help”, the instruction of teachers which help us to understand the true deposit of faith handed on by the apostles.
Then I point out that Protestants too use “extra biblical helps” in their attempt to understand the teachings of the apostles. For example, the preface to my Protestant KJV Bible recommends extra-biblical “study helps” to better understand Scripture, affirming that …
I find the above admission rather revealing. Catholics have always contended that the “extra-Biblical study helps” of Catholic tradition has “in no instance … ever done violence or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God.” But instead, Catholic traditon “only serves to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.”
It seems that when Protestants use “study helps” from “extra-Biblical sources” they “only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.” Yet, when I say the same thing of the “extra-Biblical source” of Catholic tradition, my Protestants friends charge me with following “traditions of men” instead of the “Bible alone.” I don’t find such a rebuttal at all convincing, however, as I see the hypocrisy behind their charge.
The fact is, they don’t actually use the “Bible alone” as they often assert, but also use the “traditions” or the “extra-Biblical study helps” that they choose to believe, novel as they are, whereas I use the ancient traditon or “extra-Biblical helps” that I find more compelling and believe more convincingly describes the intent of Sacred Scripture.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
You should understand that this…
“*the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done” *
… is a direct quote from the Biblical Commission’s statement in question, approved and promulgated by Paul VI (Sancta Mater Ecclesia), whereas this …
"The Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
… *is not from the Biblical Commission. *The second quote is from a commentary by Fr. Fitzmyer. So if the direct quote seems irreconciliable to what Fr. Fizmyer’s commentary says, then I’d suggest you take it up with Fr. Fitzmyer.
For my part, what the Biblical Commission actually states is more compelling than what Fr. Fitzmyer says that the Biblical Commission says. Perhaps you should read Sancta Mater Ecclesia for yourself, apart from the “spectacles” that Fr. Fitzmyer provides. It is the actual words of Sancta Mater Ecclesia that is more compelling.
“*the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done” *
… is a direct quote from the Biblical Commission’s statement in question, approved and promulgated by Paul VI (Sancta Mater Ecclesia), whereas this …
"The Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
… *is not from the Biblical Commission. *The second quote is from a commentary by Fr. Fitzmyer. So if the direct quote seems irreconciliable to what Fr. Fizmyer’s commentary says, then I’d suggest you take it up with Fr. Fitzmyer.
For my part, what the Biblical Commission actually states is more compelling than what Fr. Fitzmyer says that the Biblical Commission says. Perhaps you should read Sancta Mater Ecclesia for yourself, apart from the “spectacles” that Fr. Fitzmyer provides. It is the actual words of Sancta Mater Ecclesia that is more compelling.
- Status