Infallible only Twice?

[dcdurel]

First, note that the proper definition of “Tradition” does not, in fact, exclude that which is written. (“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” 2 Thess. 2:15)

 Agree, but by definition, if what was written was defined as inspired, then it is scripture.

Subsequently, yes, it was oral Tradition that came before Scripture. However, much (not all) of that tradition is now faithfully embedded in Scripture.

Of course not. There is no Church teaching that much of Tradition is now faithfully embedded in Scripture. None at all.
The Catechism clearly teaches that only “certain elements” of the Gospel handed down in Tradition were written in the written Gospels. Other elements were written in other parts of Scripture. There is so much of Sacred Tradition missing from Scripture that Protestant denominations can’t agree on the interpretation of a single verse of scripture.

The Church’s clear and unquivocal teaching is that Scripture is God’s word. (No, not in its entirety, but “partially”.)

ALL of scripture is God’s word. Not partially, but all.

Thus, it is now proper for someone to suggest that the proof for a given Church teaching can be found in Scripture because Scripture, for its part, is equivalent to apsotolic teaching.

Scripture is not equivalent to apostolic teaching in teaching value, in the sense that scripture is NOT primarily teaching, but salvation history.
Scripture is equivalent to apostolic teaching in the sense that it is equally God’s word.
The error most people make is that they think scripture is equivalent in teaching value to Tradition. It is not. Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel that was preached and taught (Tradition) and no where did He say salvation comes from reading scripture or believing scripture. The Church says faith comes from “hearing”, not reading.

So while the teaching itself may have come before what is written, because what is written (in Scripture) has been declared by the Church to be the 100% error free word of God, it is entirely proper to cite Scripture as proof of this, that, or the other theological position.

While scripture is the written word of God, it is primarily salvation history. Thus it is NOT proper to use scripture as “proof” of some doctrine, except rarely, because scripture is not clear regarding teachings. One cannot take what is unclear to prove what is clear.
That is why the Church rarely uses scripture as “proof” of some teaching. And even then usually says the “witness of scripture” is proof of something.
The Church quotes scripture to “nourish” and “illuminate” Church teachings that have come from the apostles.
The Church uses scripture as a “witness” to the teachings.
The Church uses scripture to give the life of Jesus.
The Church uses scripture to teach salvation history.
The Church RARELY uses scripture to “prove” teachings.

Ott’s book is totally misleading, (not on purpose) by trying to “prove” Church teachings from scripture, and from trying to “prove” Church teachings from the writings of the Fathers.
Both these writings are only “witnesses” to the teachings, not proof. Ott made a big mistake with using the word “proof” with every single teaching. If he would have said, “witness”, then his book would have been OK.

Scripture must be interpreted to fit Tradition, since Tradition contains the whole, complete, entire Gospel that the apostles learned directly from God, whereas no where does Scripture claim to present the entire Gospel, or even most of the Gospel that apostles taught and preached.

There is no reason why most Church doctrines must be in scripture.
There is no reason why any specific Church doctrine must be in scripture.
While the Gospels present some of the teachings of Jesus, there is no reason why these teachings must be perfectly clear, since Jesus intended us to learn His Gospel from believing the Gospel His Church taught and not by reading scripture.
But, once we know Church teachings, then the scriptures become clear to us, and they help us to learn and remember the doctrine. But, they are not clear to those who don’t know the teachings. Protestants who have not been taught the “true presence” cannot learn it by studying scripture. They have no idea what Jesus meant. There is volumes of missing information of the teaching in scripture. But, once they learn the Tradition handed down, then they can see it in scripture.

 

[SilentKnight]

The Catechism clearly teaches that only “certain elements” of the Gospel handed down in Tradition were written in the written Gospels. Other elements were written in other parts of Scripture. There is so much of Sacred Tradition missing from Scripture that Protestant denominations can’t agree on the interpretation of a single verse of scripture.

Do me a favor and expound on this (what parts of Tradition are missing from Scirpture?) and post a paragraph number for me (re: sentence 1) as I prepare my response to the rest of your post?

SK

 

[dcdurel]

Do me a favor and expound on this (what parts of Tradition are missing from Scirpture?) and post a paragraph number for me (re: sentence 1) as I prepare my response to the rest of your post?
SK

Some entire teaching are missing, such as the canon of scripture,
that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
How to conduct a worship service,
who has authority to administer the sacraments
the definition of scripture,
and clear definitions of salvation, God, the Trinity, redemption, and just about any teaching you can think of.
There is no teaching clear and explicit in scripture, otherwise all Protestant denominations would agree on that teaching.

Jesus never said salvation comes from believing scripture.
Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel the Church taught and preached.
Faith in scripture cannot save you, only faith in Jesus can save you and Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel that His Church taught and preached, because Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught to the apostles alone, EVERYTHING concerning salvation.

 

[SilentKnight]

Dc,

You have a very interesting and unexpected perspective. It’s one that I’m afraid is quite incorrect, however. The anti-scripture bias in it is simply unwarranted and incongruent with official Catholic teaching.

I wanted to be able to spend a good amount of time going through everything you said, more or less line by line, but at this point it looks as if I am not going to have enough time before leaving town for a few days.

Thus, the very abbreviated, but also straight-forward, version:
Pope Leo XIII:

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

The God of all Providence, Who in the adorable designs of His love at first elevated the human race to the participation of the Divine nature, and afterwards delivered it from universal guilt and ruin, restoring it to its primitive dignity, has in consequence bestowed upon man a splendid gift and safeguard - making known to him, by supernatural means, the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, His wisdom and His mercy. For although in Divine revelation there are contained some things which are not beyond the reach of unassisted reason, and which are made the objects of such revelation in order “that all may come to know them with facility, certainty, and safety from error, yet not on this account can supernatural Revelation be said to be absolutely necessary; it is only necessary because God has ordinated man to a supernatural end.”(1) This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, “being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church.”(2) This belief has been perpetually held and professed by the Church in regard to the Books of both Testaments; and there are well-known documents of the gravest kind, coming down to us from the earliest times, which proclaim that God, Who spoke first by the Prophets, then by His own mouth, and lastly by the Apostles, composed also the Canonical Scriptures,(3) and that these are His own oracles and words(4) - a Letter, written by our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race in its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly country.(5) If, then, such and so great is the excellence and the dignity of the Scriptures, that God Himself has composed them, and that they treat of God’s marvellous mysteries, counsels and works, it follows that the branch of sacred Theology which is concerned with the defence and elucidation of these divine Books must be excellent and useful in the highest degree.

(fast forward…)

1. The Holy Fathers well knew all this by practical experience, and they never cease to extol the sacred Scripture and its fruits. In innumerable passages of their writings we find them applying to it such phrases as “**an inexhaustible treasury of heavenly doctrine,”(**16) or “an overflowing fountain of salvation,”(17)

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

I would strongly encourage you to read and meditate on the rest of the encyclical. It’s deep.

And from the Second Vatican Council:
The Church's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

CHAPTER VI

SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

1. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).
2. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.
3. The bride of the incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies. **Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. This should be so done that as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able effectively to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God, to enlighten their minds, strengthen their wills, and set men’s hearts on fire with the love of God. **(1) The sacred synod encourages the sons of the Church and Biblical scholars to continue energetically, following the mind of the Church, with the work they have so well begun, with a constant renewal of vigor. (2)
4. Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation. By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that word. **For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology. **(3) By the same word of Scripture the ministry of the word also, that is, pastoral preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction, in which the liturgical homily must hold the foremost place, is nourished in a healthy way and flourishes in a holy way.

To be continued…

 

[SilentKnight]

1. Therefore, all the clergy must hold fast to the Sacred Scriptures through diligent sacred reading and careful study, especially the priests of Christ and others, such as deacons and catechists who are legitimately active in the ministry of the word. This is to be done so that none of them will become “an empty preacher of the word of God outwardly, who is not a listener to it inwardly” (4) since they must share the abundant wealth of the divine word with the faithful committed to them, especially in the sacred liturgy. **The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the “excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:8). ****“For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”(**5) Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for “we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying.” (6)

It devolves on sacred bishops “who have the apostolic teaching”(7) to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels. This can be done through translations of the sacred texts, which are to be provided with the necessary and really adequate explanations so that the children of the Church may safely and profitably become conversant with the Sacred Scriptures and be penetrated with their spirit.

Furthermore, editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.

1. In this way, therefore, through the reading and study of the sacred books “the word of God may spread rapidly and be glorified” (2 Thess. 3:1) and the treasure of revelation, entrusted to the Church, may more and more fill the hearts of men. Just as the life of the Church is strengthened through more frequent celebration of the Eucharistic mystery, similar we may hope for a new stimulus for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God, which “lasts forever” (Is. 40:8; see 1 Peter 1:23-25).

To back up for a moment in the Constitution…
"Dei Verbum:

1. 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. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

Again, for the Constitution in its entirety:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

I would strongly encourage that you read and meditate on it also.

A few general comments:

1. Scripture, as you can see, is spritually equivalent with the oral aspect of Tradition. To relegate it to a mere salvation history narrative (like a children’s book of stories about Noah and “Father Abraham” and all that) is heresy.
2. As for Scripture not being clear, otherwise Protestantism wouldn’t exist, I’m afraid I would have to beg to differ. It’s in the very nature of Protestantism to do just that - to protest. Martin Luther didn’t come up with Sola Scriptura because he honestly believed it. He came up with it because he needed a way to justify the teaching on Sola Fides, which itself was simply a way to soothe his obsessive complusive conscience.

The teaching in Scripture on baptism, for example, is very, very clear and unambiguous. 1 Peter 3:21 states, “Baptism…saves you now.” Period. End of story. Jesus said, “This IS my body…” Period. End of story. The mental gynmastics that some Protestants do to get around these plain teachings are amazing. And how, I ask, is oral Tradition supposed to make anything better in that regard?

“No, really, baptism really does save.” Ok, well…Thanks. Scripture already says that.

1. For me, it is difficult to speak of Scripture “and” Tradition because they are two halves of the same whole and intermingle so intimately that it’s very difficult sometimes to tell one from the other.

Let’s note that there is a difference between essence and appearance, between formally being so and essentially being so. I asked you to provide me with a list of teaching that are not in Sacred Scripture but are a part of oral Tradition. That may have been a mistake, because truth isn’t quite so…“cut and dried”. It isn’t so “black and white”. You began by saying:

Some entire teaching are missing, such as the canon of scripture,

Well…I agree that the canon of Scripture is not explicitly laid out in Scripture in its entirety. Though, Peter makes mention of some of Paul’s writings as Scripture in one his letters, so there is a question there, along with some other questions we won’t bother getting into right now.

What I do want to take the time to point out is the very nature of this first teaching. The canon of Scripture is not in Scripture, it’s a part of oral Tradition…Ok…Well…Why does that matter? What does that in itself suggest about Scripture’s value? If Scripture is of no value than the value of a simple story book, this demotes the canon out of Tradition which is reserved only to those things which are an immutable and integral part of the Church’s theology and constitution.

See?

As for the rest, all other teachings intermingle with each other like this one does. You mentioned the question of who can administer the Sacraments. That’s already seen in Scripture in part as we observe Jesus breathing only on the apostles, for example and telling them who sins they forgive are forgiven and who sins they retain are retained. It’s not explicitly stated anywhere in scripture that the clergy and only the clergy are granted this power. But neither can it be alleged that the teaching is not in Scripture at all. It is, as we’ve just noted.

You mentioned that there is no mention in Scripture that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine are transformed into the Euchairst. Well…Again, sure. There is no explicit statement in Scripture of this sort. But to suggest that the Eucharist is not in Scripture is simply false, obviously. It’s in there quite explicitly. And then one has to ask oneself just where “Tradition” ends and theological expounding (that is not strictly in itself a constitutional part of “Tradition”) continues. Aquinas’s “accident” and …what is it…substance (???) description is not in Scripture either. But I think all would agree with me when I say that that’s ok because the accident and substance teaching is not Tradition itself, but only an explanation thereof.

Know what mean?

As one of the documents above explains (using different verbage), Scripture is the dots and oral Tradition is sometimes the connecting thereof. (In some cases, the dots are already connected.)

Jesus never said salvation comes from believing scripture.
Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel the Church taught and preached.

Yes…Which truth, you’ll note, you’re gleaning from Scripture.
But anyway! Not to torture…

Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel that His Church taught and preached…

Whether by word of mouth or by letter, right.

Ok, gotta go…

SK

 

[dcdurel]

1. Scripture, as you can see, is spritually equivalent with the oral aspect of Tradition. To relegate it to a mere salvation history narrative (like a children’s book of stories about Noah and “Father Abraham” and all that) is heresy.

Since when is salvation history less than teaching doctrine.

Each has its place. Scripture was never intended to teach the Gospel. Jesus founded His Church to teach the Gospel.
Since both are God’s word, they are equal. But, they are not equal in regards to doctrine. The Church teaches that everything she believes is handed down in Tradition. The Church teaches that only “certain elements” of that Tradition were written in the Gospels.
While we should read the bible to learn about Jesus and some of His teachings, I don’t know where anyone got the idea that we could learn the Gospel by reading scripture. Jesus never taught that. His Church never taught that. St. Paul never taught that. It is not taught anywhere. It must have come from theologians and scripture scholars, since they are the source of all heresies.

1. As for Scripture not being clear, otherwise Protestantism wouldn’t exist, I’m afraid I would have to beg to differ. It’s in the very nature of Protestantism to do just that - to protest. Martin Luther didn’t come up with Sola Scriptura because he honestly believed it. He came up with it because he needed a way to justify the teaching on Sola Fides, which itself was simply a way to soothe his obsessive complusive conscience.

 That may have been Luther's intentions, but there are  thousands of excellent Protestants today who love Jesus and who do all they can to learn the  truth from God by studying and reading scripture.   They still can't agree.

The teaching in Scripture on baptism, for example, is very, very clear and unambiguous. 1 Peter 3:21 states, “Baptism…saves you now.” Period. End of story.

Define "saves".  Was Peter referring to final salvation?  The beginning of salvation?   What is the beginning of salvation?

Exactly what is salvation? Saves from what? Does baptism only save from sin? What does save from sin mean? Does that mean forgive from sin? Did God forgive the Jews from their sins. Wasn’t David forgiven from his sins. So again, what exactly does “save” mean?
I know you could give your opinions about the correct answers, but then again, those are only your opinions and no one can “prove” them from the bible.
Of course, if you know the teachings the apostles handed down, through the Church, then the scripture verses make more sense, and come to life. But, too those who are taught we are saved by faith, the moment we believe (as many Protestants are taught) and that baptism is a work, thus it cannot save, then there is no way that they could learn anything from these verses except to believe that Peter was speaking very figuratively.
We could go on and on, but the fact is the bible is not clear. Why? Because Jesus did not intend it to be clear. He intended everyone to learn the Gospel through His Church. If Jesus wanted us to learn His Gospel by reading scripture, then He would have incorporated an entire Catechism somewhere in the bible. But He didn’t.

Jesus said, “This IS my body…” Period. End of story. The mental gynmastics that some Protestants do to get around these plain teachings are amazing. And how, I ask, is oral Tradition supposed to make anything better in that regard?

 Is the consecrated bread the whole body of Jesus, or only part of His body.  Scripture doesn't say.  Is His soul also present?  Is His Divinity present?  Does scripture say either way?   Is His blood present in the consecrated host.  If so, why didn't He say, "This is my blood" or "This is My body and My blood."  If His blood is not present, then is His body in the host alive?    How could it be alive if His blood was not present.   Does His body we receive have to be alive?  What does the scripture mean when Jesus said,  "the flesh profits nothing".   
 The fact is that the bible is skimpy on all the doctrines.  There are no clear explanations from the bible alone on the above.   But, the Church has all these answers in her teachings.  Why?  because the Church learned "everything" from the apostles, who learned "everything" from Jesus and NOT from reading the bible.

What I do want to take the time to point out is the very nature of this first teaching. The canon of Scripture is not in Scripture, it’s a part of oral Tradition…Ok…Well…Why does that matter? What does that in itself suggest about Scripture’s value? If Scripture is of no value than the value of a simple story book, this demotes the canon out of Tradition which is reserved only to those things which are an immutable and integral part of the Church’s theology and constitution.
See?

Since when did I say that Scripture is only the value of a story book?
For one thing, salvation history IS important. It is hard to understand and place teachings without salvation history. Teachings don’t just come from no where. They must be located in history, even if just to show how they originated in Tradition.
The Church also teaches that scripture is necessary to know Jesus. “Not to know scripture is not to know Christ”, the Church teaches. That is why the Gospels are read at mass.
The Church teaches that scripture is a witness to her teachings, nourishes her teachings and illuminates her teachings. It is much easier to remember teachings when we can quote scripture to illuminate those teachings. Thus, when doctrine is taught, it should be taught in conjunction with scripture, as the Church teaches. So the two go together.
But again, Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, NOT from reading scripture. The Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith.
Very few Catholic scholars know this. In fact, I have not read of any who do know this, but, I assume there must be at least a few.
Why don’t they know this? Because they don’t take the Popes as their leaders. Why? Because other Catholic scholars have taught that the Popes were only infallible twice.
What total nonsense.
First, these Catholic scholars themselves would have to be infallible to know this. That would place authority and truth and certainty in Catholic scholars instead of the Popes.
But lets face facts.
All heresies originated by Catholic scholars, and were spread by Catholic scholars, and all these heresies spread with the complicity of Catholic bishops.
No Catholic scholar has ever been even close to being infallible.
Those two facts are one reason I seldom pay attention to Catholic scholars anymore, unless they are saints and unless I know they are totally within the teachings of the Church.
And of course, most of the encyclicals the Popes write are to refute the errors of Catholic scholars.

You mentioned that there is no mention in Scripture that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine are transformed into the Euchairst. Well…Again, sure. There is no explicit statement in Scripture of this sort. But to suggest that the Eucharist is not in Scripture is simply false, obviously. It’s in there quite explicitly.

Parts of the teaching are in scripture, a few parts. The teachings about the Eucharist are much more in the Catechism than could ever be in the bible.

And then one has to ask oneself just where “Tradition” ends and theological expounding (that is not strictly in itself a constitutional part of “Tradition”) continues. Aquinas’s “accident” and …what is it…substance (???) description is not in Scripture either. But I think all would agree with me when I say that that’s ok because the accident and substance teaching is not Tradition itself, but only an explanation thereof.
Know what mean?

The Church teaches that everything in Tradition is not explicit. And that with time a deeper penetration can be made with the aid of the Holy Spirit. But, since that penetration is solely into and about the word of God, then that penetration becomes part of Tradition also.

Whether by word of mouth or by letter, right.

But, St. Paul did say salvation came through believing the Gospel he taught, not the scriptures he wrote.

 

[SilentKnight]

Dc,

Whereas before I was not entirely privy to all that you thought on this matter, now I have to admit to being rather confused as to what precisely you believe. You’ve stated a few things in your last post that sound like very distinct contradictions. You seem to be making distinctions that are not warranted and failing to make distinctions that are. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to take a look at each one, piece by piece. Leaving tomorrow on vacation.

Having to fast forward, I think the most telling thing that you said in the post was:

But again, Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, NOT from reading scripture. The Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith.

Very few Catholic scholars know this. In fact, I have not read of any who do know this, but, I assume there must be at least a few. Why don’t they know this? Because they don’t take the Popes as their leaders. Why? Because other Catholic scholars have taught that the Popes were only infallible twice.
**
What total nonsense**.

My first instinct is to ask you how Jesus could have said, “salvation comes from reading Scripture” when the New Testament was not written in his time???

My second is to point out that Jesus didn’t, but a pope and an ecumenical council of bishops did. So, same thing. Their teachings have already been cited. Your choice as to whether or not you wish to pay them heed.

Whenever someone says, “Nobody else knows this but me…”, the statement automatically acquires a terribly skeptical eye. It does not in itself disqualify something from being true, but it does generally cause it to stand on some thin ice.

Your belief that every single thing the popes have ever said on the Christian faith is infallible already places you into the category of being on the wrong theological platform to begin with. All types of additional misunderstandings then are bound to follow.

To speak very, very briefly to this notion, what was the point of the first Vatican Council defining when the Pope speaks infallibly if that happens every single time he teaches on the Christian faith? What of Cardinal Ratzinger, our current pope, who declared that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible delcaration? Heretic?

If quotations from Church Councils and popes like, “Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)” and “The Holy Fathers…never cease to extol the sacred Scripture and its fruits. In innumerable passages of their writings we find them applying to it such phrases as ‘an inexhaustible treasury of heavenly doctrine,’(16) or ‘an overflowing fountain of salvation,’”, don’t impress you then, as short as I am on time, there isn’t much more for us to say to each other anyway.

Peace,

SK

 

[dcdurel]

My first instinct is to ask you how Jesus could have said, “salvation comes from reading Scripture” when the New Testament was not written in his time???

If Jesus intended salvation to come from reading scripture, He could have inspired all the scriptures to be written immediately after His resurrection and He could have said that He intended salvation to come from reading scripture.

St. Paul also said salvation came from believing the Gospel he PREACHED, not the scriptures he wrote.

God did not intend salvation to come from reading scripture for the simple reason that the bible no where claims to present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, and ONLY the Gospel they taught and preached contained EVERYTHING Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught them.

My second is to point out that Jesus didn’t, but a pope and an ecumenical council of bishops did. So, same thing. Their teachings have already been cited. Your choice as to whether or not you wish to pay them heed.

No where did the Church ever say salvation came from reading scripture, the bible, etc. The Church says “faith comes by hearing”. "The Church never taught faith comes by reading.

Lets go over some basics.
The Catechism summarizes:
God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
2. So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world.

Notice how the people learned the Gospel, the Good News.
Was it by reading scripture? Or was it by believing what the apostles proclaimed and preached and taught? The Catechism continues how this Gospel is handed down.

This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ’s faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer

Does it say that this Gospel is handed down by Christ’s faithful by giving out bibles and letting people read scripture?
Or does it say that it is handed down by, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.

Notice what comes first, “by professing the faith”. Which faith? The Catholic faith. The Gospel is first handed down by professing the Catholic faith. This Gospel that the apostles taught and preached (handed down in Tradition) is summarized in the Catechism. That is why the Church teaches:
“Catechesis is nothing other than the process of transmitting the Gospel, as the Christian community has received it, understands it, celebrates it, lives it and communicates it in many ways.” General Directory for Catechesis 105

Note, “as the Christian community has received it”. People learned the Gospel by Catechesis from the apostles. NOT by reading scripture.
The Gospel is not first handed down by reading scripture to people.

Then it continues that the Gospel is also handed down by living it in fraternal sharing, then by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer, because it is through the liturgy of the sacraments and prayer that we receive the grace to live the faith.

Whenever someone says, “Nobody else knows this but me…”, the statement automatically acquires a terribly skeptical eye. It does not in itself disqualify something from being true, but it does generally cause it to stand on some thin ice.

I agree.
I wish I could find someone else who understands that by “proclaim the Gospel” the Church means proclaim the Catholic faith, because that was the Gospel the apostles proclaimed.
Obviously the writers of the Catechism understood this.
And in the Glossary the Bishop who wrote it understood the difference between the four Gospels and the Gospel the Church teaches and preaches.
But it seems everyone else is totally lost. If you could find a single scholar who understands this, then please point him out to me.

Your belief that every single thing the popes have ever said on the Christian faith is infallible already places you into the category of being on the wrong theological platform to begin with. All types of additional misunderstandings then are bound to follow.

Everything they taught for the whole Church. NOT everything they ever said.

What of Cardinal Ratzinger, our current pope, who declared that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible delcaration? Heretic?

I don’t know who you are reading, but Cardinal Ratzinger, said the very opposite:
"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

 

[SilentKnight]

Just got back. Dc, you continue to take a very very selective, cut and paste approach to the Catholic faith. I’m assuming that’s accidental, not intentional.

Whatever the case, I got nothin’ for ya except that which has already been asserted by Pope Leo and Vatican II. Read and meditate. (There’s not point in expounding on the basics when those basics are not yet appreciated, eh? )

I don’t know who you are reading, but Cardinal Ratzinger, said the very opposite:

    "This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly reserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *Lumen Gentium* 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, **explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."**

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

No, he didn’t. Read it again in context. Then read this:

“In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as head of the CDF, Oct. 1995)

What the good (former) cardinal is saying, readily apparent to those who are willing to hear it, is that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was, in fact, not an infallible declaration by the Pope if for no other reason than it was already infallibly put forth by other means. One cannot infallibly declare that which has already been infallibly declared.

Providentissimus Deus & Dei Verbum.

Read. Meditate, brother.

Peace,

SK