Is Sola Scriptura what Catholics now believe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will just refer back to what De Maria said. I do not reject Dei Verbum. I was simply saying that if Dei Verbum taught what you are saying it does, folks would believe it. It has been around long enough for folks to realize this. And yet, we do not believe that.
 
NoelFitz said:
I listened to Karlo Broussard claiming to believe that holding the Bible as the only source of revelation is incoherent, and he rejected it as false Protestant belief. I claim that now Catholic doctrine is that the Bible is the only source of revelations. There are not two sources of revelation, but one.

In the old day we used to believe there were two sources of revelation, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, but now since Dei Verbum Catholic teaching is that there is one source - Sacred Scripture, as interpreted by the Church.

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. (Paul VI, Dei Verbum 1965).
Click to expand...
Do you understand how Catholics are to read and interpret the Bible?

Do you understand Sacred Scripture + Tradition

I also changed the title to a question rather then statement that is close to heresy imho.
Or at least an aggressive insult to Catholics. Keep these titles charitable.

My friend, Does your Catholic Parish offer any Introduction to Scripture classes? .if you are Catholic you would benefit greatly from some understanding. Daytona University offers short online introductory units. Many Diocese allow their parishioners to take a few of these units, especially if in ministeries in the Parish.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for most of the contributions.

I think eventually we are coming closer together, and in fact the only hostile contribution has been by BenjaminJ.

As most are Catholics here, some more expert in the faith, I would not expect fundamental differences. I may be wrong, but if so I hope it is in good faith.

FollowChris34 wrote
I think this can all be cleared up quite easily.
Sacred Scripture = Sacred Scripture
Tradition = as interpreted by the Church
No change there.

That in a very concise way is what I have been trying to say.

I have quoted Dei Verbum several times. I do not disagree with Pope Paul VI.

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. (Paul VI, Dei Verbum 1965).

In a sense can tradition and Scripture be considered as tributaries of the same river. Would this help?

Po18Guy references the CCC:

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

Does this differ much from what I am trying to claim?

RandpmAlias gives a reference to the CCC:

_Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."

Does this differ contradict what I am trying to claim about Catholic Revelation being based on the Bible as interpreted by the Church?

De_Maria wrote

Catholic exegesis begins from the point of view of the Tradition of the Church. In other words, we read Sacred Scripture within the context of Sacred Tradition.

This seems to me what I am trying to point out, that we read Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Church.

So when one considers the case deeply, what I am claiming does not differ greatly from what others wrote.

So in conclusion, to write that Catholics believe revelation depends on the Bible as interpreted by the Church is not gross heresy.
 
2Towers
thank you for your post.
I thought I had finalized my contributions here in my last post. But I must thank you for your warm and encouraging post.
Reading it I am made aware of the importance of heart as well as head in our one true faith.
 
NoelFitz said:
I think eventually we are coming closer together, and in fact the only hostile contribution has been by BenjaminJ.
Click to expand...
Benjamin had every right to react that way. Your title and argument were very blunt, and your title was confrontational.

Let’s discuss this in a beneficial and educated way.

Ie how do Catholics …

Why do Catholics…
 
Last edited:
“NoelFitz said:
De_Maria wrote
_> _
> Catholic exegesis begins from the point of view of the Tradition of the Church. In other words, we read Sacred Scripture within the context of Sacred Tradition.

This seems to me what I am trying to point out, that we read Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Church.
Click to expand...
Not quite the Catholic Teaching. Let’s go back to your OP. You said:

_NoelFitz12h1 _
I listened to Karlo Broussard claiming to believe that holding the Bible as the only source of revelation is incoherent, and he rejected it as false Protestant belief. **I claim that now Catholic doctrine is that the Bible is the only source of revelations. There are not two sources of revelation, but one.**

What does “revelation” mean to you? Do you mean that Jesus appears to the person who picks up a Bible? Or that a person must pick up a Bible in order to know what Jesus taught?

What about the Sacrament of Reconciliation where Jesus speaks through the Priest in “persona Christi”? Is that a source of Revelation?

Does the Bible itself say that this source of revelation will always continue?

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Now, what else does the Bible say? Let’s see:

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

A person who has never heard the word of God, hears it for the first time from a preacher. Not from reading it in the Bible.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

It says that we hear the Word of God when it is spoken to us, not read to us and not from reading it.

So, neither the Bible nor the Church says that the spoken word is no longer a source of revelation.
So when one considers the case deeply, what I am claiming does not differ greatly from what others wrote.
Click to expand...
It differs immensely.
So in conclusion, to write that Catholics believe revelation depends on the Bible as interpreted by the Church is not gross heresy.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Catholics believe in revelation which depends on the Word of God as passed down through the Church, by Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Sacred Tradition being the source of the New Testament Scripture. Sacred Tradition continues to be orally transmitted and does not depend upon Sacred Scripture to be orally transmitted. But Sacred Scripture depends upon Sacred Tradition and Magisterium in order that the message can be received incorrupt.
Click to expand...
 
“FollowChrist34 said:
I think this can all be cleared up quite easily.

Sacred Scripture = Sacred Scripture
Tradition = as interpreted by the Church
Click to expand...
You have proposed a false dichotomy. Sacred Scripture is a dead letter. It doesn’t interpret itself. That is why Protestants hold thousands of iterations of their interpretation of its contents.

The Word of God = Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
 
"The demanding task of the new evangelization thus involves presenting the Bible once again to the whole People of God through liturgical proclamation, preaching and catechesis, the practice of lectio divina and other ways well described in your recent Pastoral Note, “La Bibbia nella vita della Chiesa”. Parish and religious communities, lay movements and associations, families and young people can thus experience the loving condescension of God the Father, who through Sacred Scripture reaches out to every person, revealing the nature of his Only-begotten Son and his plan of salvation for humanity.

So that Scripture may be understood and accepted by the faithful in the full depths of its truth and as the supreme rule of our faith, guidance must obviously be provided that will avoid superficial, emotional or even manipulative interpretations which are not enlightened by wise discernment and listening in the Spirit. This is our specific responsibility as Pastors, aided by priests and catechists: the true and genuine interpretation and transmission of the sacred texts can only take place within the Church, in the light of living Tradition and under the guidance of the Magisterium (cf. Dei Verbum 10)." (Pope John Paul II, address, 22 May,1997)
 
Last edited:
NoelFitz said:
Can I again emphasize that for Catholics revelation is based on the Bible, as interpreted by the Church?
Click to expand...
The main flaw of your reasoning is you incorrectly assume one preceded the other. Here’s the analogy.

You believe the author of his/her autobiography is interpreting details about their life from the book they wrote and only from that book alone.

That autobiography, in this case and specifically(the New Testament Bible) would not exist if that author(The Catholic Church) had not given its account of itself, the One true Church founded by Jesus Christ(The Catholic Church)

Moreover, Tradition precedes the written account, Example. When we read in Matthews gospel that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter, that event was recorded in written form decades after it happened. Had this been the year 50 AD no interpretation by the Catholic Church would be needed, you could have asked St. Peter or any of those with him personally , without the Bible , or sacred Tradition. Therefore no interpretation would have been necessary.

This first hand account and events that the Catholic Church revealed and recorded for the world, is why , and the only reason why it was and is the only Church founded by Jesus Christ. Who else today can better interpret it’s own story?
 
NoelFitz said:
The Word of God is ambiguous for Catholics, as it can mean Jesus Christ (The Word was made flesh). In Pope Paul’s Dei Verbum it refers to the Bible, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
With respect, you are reading Dei Verbum incorrectly. When the Council speaks of the “Word of God” or “Divine Revelation”, it refers to the one Revelation that is manifested in both Scripture and Tradition.

I think that the issue you are running into is that when you come across the word “revelation” or “Word of God”, you are mentally substituting in the word “Bible.” But that is not how those terms are being used. It would be more accurate to mentally substitute “Scripture and Tradition” every time you come across those phrases in Church documents.
 
Last edited:
The Word of God is a Divine Person of the Holy Trinity. That Eternal Person, the Son of God, became enfleshed and all Divine Revelation as been given to us in that Person, viz. Jesus Christ. That Revelation has been transmitted through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition thereby safeguarded and properly interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Please, do not confuse the Word of God with the written or spoken Word of God, i.e. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, respectively. 🙂
 
NoelFitz said:
Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."

Does this differ contradict what I am trying to claim about Catholic Revelation being based on the Bible as interpreted by the Church?
Click to expand...
I’m still not sure what you’re claiming. But some posters here think that you’re claiming that Tradition started after , either, the Scriptural books/writings were written, or, after the Bible was compiled…I don’t know which you might be talking about though.
NoelFitz said:
De_Maria wrote

Catholic exegesis begins from the point of view of the Tradition of the Church. In other words, we read Sacred Scripture within the context of Sacred Tradition.

This seems to me what I am trying to point out, that we read Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Church.

So when one considers the case deeply, what I am claiming does not differ greatly from what others wrote.
Click to expand...
“deeply” eh? Are you saying that the writers of the NT were part of the Church, therefore, the writer’s interpretation of Christ’s words should be considered “Church exegesis” or Church interpretation of the Word of God. Are you saying that the “Word of God” were the things that came directly from Jesus, not Scripture? In other words, the NT didn’t come directly from Jesus, it came as an interpretation of what Jesus said and did. An interpretation from writers who belonged to the Church, therefore Scripture is Church exegesis of the Word of God? Furthermore, that the translations from Aramaic into Greek or Hebrew could be considered “Church exegesis”?
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm.

Interesting, but doesn’t the RRC teach that there are no NEW revelations through the bible, when it is rightly [the CATHOLIC understanding] understood.

New revelation like the proclamation of the the ASSUMPTION flow THROUGH Sacred Tradition.

God Bless you,
Patrick
 
PJM said:
Hmmmm.

Interesting, but doesn’t the RRC teach that there are no NEW revelations through the bible, when it is rightly [the CATHOLIC understanding] understood.

New revelation like the proclamation of the the ASSUMPTION flow THROUGH Sacred Tradition.

God Bless you,
Patrick
Click to expand...
Your comment begs the question. All public divine revelation came through the Person of Jesus Christ. Revelation was not transmitted through Scripture alone; if so, then the doctrines that you believe through Sacred Scripture, the Christians for the first four centuries had no clue about considering the Holy Bible was not in its final canonical form until the late fourth century

The Dogma of the Trinity was not publicly promulgated in conciliar fashion until the early fourth century at the Council of Nicaea, hence the Nicene Creed (I believe in God the Father…I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son…I believe in the Holy Spirit, i.e. I believe in the Trinity). Using your reasoning, the Church promulgated a “new revelation…through Sacred Tradition” in 325AD.

Again, every central, core Dogma of the Church was revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, and those Dogmas are transmitted through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, and promulgated, properly understood, and safeguarded by the pillar and foundation of the truth, i.e. the Church.

If you take out one of the legs of the Church (Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium), you will get one of the following three: apostasy, schism, heresy.
 
Last edited:
GREAT post

THANKS and God Bless, and I agree with your points except I believe it is the Holy Spirit through Jesus…

Continued Blessings,

Patrick
 
It is an interesting point that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not in the Bible. Thus all Catholic Dogmas are not Bible based. This need reflection.
 
NoelFitz said:
It is an interesting point that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not in the Bible.
Click to expand...
They’re not explicitly in the Bible, as such.

However, Catholics look at Gabriel’s greeting of κεχαριτωμένη to Mary, and recognize in it an assertion that Mary is blessed with grace like no other human. It is this grace to which we refer in describing the Immaculate Conception.

Likewise, we look at the Book of Revelation’s depiction of the woman in heaven – immediately following John’s assertion that the ark of the covenant was visible in the sky – as the indication that Mary is in heaven. (Looking back at the Old Testament, and seeing the notion of the gebirah in the context of the Davidic kingship, and noting that Jesus reigns in heaven now, we likewise conclude that Jesus’s gebirah – his mother Mary! – is there with Him.)
Thus all Catholic Dogmas are not Bible based. This need reflection.
Click to expand...
I think that reflection should allow us to nuance your claim: Catholic dogmata are not necessarily explicitly present in Scripture, but proceed from the Deposit of the Faith (which includes both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

(Incidentally, I think I’d disagree that everything in Tradition is found in the Bible. The Bible has pride of place, but even it tells us that Jesus’ command to the apostles was to “teach everything I have taught you” but that there are more things that Jesus said and did than are recorded in the Bible. Therefore, we must conclude the logical implication that there are things that spring from Jesus’ teaching – things that are part of Apostolic Teaching – that aren’t necessarily recorded in the Bible. At the heart of it, then, that’s my answer to your original question: it is not the case that Apostolic Teaching is merely a faint echo of Scriptural writ, but is, itself, a source of Jesus’ revelation to the world…)
 
NoelFitz said:
It is an interesting point that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not in the Bible. Thus all Catholic Dogmas are not Bible based. This need reflection.
Click to expand...
Your comment is a non sequitur argument and begs the question.

Every revealed Dogma can be formally and/or materially found in Sacred Scripture. What your claim presupposes is that all Dogma must only be formally or explicitly found in Scripture. Not only that, but your comment suggests that Dogma only comes from, and is based on, the Bible; that is not biblical and undermines the Person of Jesus Christ, the source of all Dogma and Divine Revelation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top