Is this an accurate statement?

[WJL]

A friend of mine is writing an article and he wanted to know if this is an accurate statement:

“It is considered that the Bible during the Middle Ages functioned in an elite ecclesiastical framework, more so as a dogma tool to support particular theological traditions. There was no separation of study of the church and study of the Bible, the church instead of the Bible was the sole source for theology.”

 

[1ke]

Well, no. It’s not accurate at all.

 

[WJL]

Well, no. It’s not accurate at all.

That was my initial thought, as well. How would you correct that statement, though?

 

[davidv]

That was my initial thought, as well. How would you correct that statement, though?

It is not correctable. It is full of false statements and seems to be built on false assumptions.

 

[Domnall]

That was my initial thought, as well. How would you correct that statement, though?

Maybe the statement could be rephrased to something like this.

“The Bible was used in the Middle Ages in conjunction with the Sacred Tradition of the Church as the foundation for the Church’s Theology.”

I know the wording is plain, but its almost 11 and I’ve had a long day

 

[WJL]

It is not correctable. It is full of false statements and seems to be built on false assumptions.

I don’t think I was clear. What I meant by “correct” was, how would you explain to my friend why it is a false statement and what the truth is?

 

[davidv]

I don’t think I was clear. What I meant by “correct” was, how would you explain to my friend why it is a false statement and what the truth is?

Have your friend prove that Bible should be sole source of theology.
See Domnall’s post for a true statement.

 

[WJL]

Maybe the statement could be rephrased to something like this.

“The Bible was used in the Middle Ages in conjunction with the Sacred Tradition of the Church as the foundation for the Church’s Theology.”

I know the wording is plain, but its almost 11 and I’ve had a long day

Thanks, Domnall.

Any other suggestions from others would be appreciated.

 

[WJL]

“The Bible was used in the Middle Ages in conjunction with the Sacred Tradition of the Church as the foundation for the Church’s Theology.”

My friend asked the following question in response to this:

“Would you consider this Middle Ages treatment of the Bible, through Sacred Tradition as a particular approach towards Biblical theological study that places superiority of that Tradition, and the Church, over and instead of a common methodology for individuals to study the Bible?”

How would you respond?

 

[WJL]

Could anyone suggest how to respond to the above question?

 

[JM3]

My friend asked the following question in response to this:

“Would you consider this Middle Ages treatment of the Bible, through Sacred Tradition as a particular approach towards Biblical theological study that places superiority of that Tradition, and the Church, over and instead of a common methodology for individuals to study the Bible?”

How would you respond?

This Middle Ages Treatment?
The Church has always used Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in understanding its theology.

Superiority?
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are equal. Non is ‘superior’ to the other.

a common methodology for individuals to study the Bible.
Your friend needs to learn more about the culture of the Middle Ages. It wasn’t a time when you could go down to the corner store and get a Bible for a couple of bucks or find it free in a hotel.

I’m assuming, of course, that you friend is not Catholic, as his ‘article’ does not sound favorable.

 

[thistle]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

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”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

CCC 81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

CCC 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

 

[Barbkw]

“It is considered that the Bible during the Middle Ages functioned in an elite ecclesiastical framework, more so as a dogma tool to support particular theological traditions. There was no separation of study of the church and study of the Bible, the church instead of the Bible was the sole source for theology.”

It is considereded by whom, specify whom?

Which time period of the Middle Ages and in which country?

Define elete eccelesiastical with specific examples.

Show proof of that framework.

Show proof of that framework in use in each country of specifics.

What is meant by dogma tool.

Show proof of use of dogma tool and it’s intent upon use and it’s systematic use.

Which particular theological traditions?

Define “no seperation of study of the church and study of the Bible”?

Which church and in which country?

Show outside reasoning that impacted the premise of this statement as a whole.

What does “the church instead of the Bible was the sole source for theology” mean specifically. Define church as it applies in use in this sentence.

Show proof of use in each country.

Show in the Bible where “bible alone” must be the sole factor for education and worship.

 

[Domnall]

WJW…it seems like your friend is trying to write an article that states that the Bible was considered less important to the Church in the Middle Ages. I don’t want to assume, but from his responses this seems like the case. If this isn’t his intent, please let me know otherwise.

JM3 makes an excellent point…the Bible wasn’t, and shouldn’t have been available to everyone in the Middle Ages. Most people were ignorant and illiterate, and those who could read and write still may not have the full capacity for Biblical understanding.

The Bible needs to be in conjunction with Holy Scripture. One must be careful not to interpret the Bible by themselves, especially when a person may not understand the full context of a passage.

The reason Sacred Tradition is often infused in Biblical study is they both support each other–Sacred Tradition offeres a timeline of historical implications of what the Bible has to say.

We don’t believe in Sola Scriptura as Catholics…both the Bible and Sacred Tradition need to be used for interpretation.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Have your friend consider the following facts:

1. The Bible wasn’t assembled and codified until the fourth century. And, even then, the Church had to go through over 300 documents to end up with the 27 that are in the New Testament.
2. Until the 1800’s or so, the vast majority of the world’s population was illiterate. What good would a book be to the vast majority of people if they couldn’t even read?
3. Jesus didn’t give us a book, He founded a Church, to teach us His truths.
4. John 21:25 says that not everything Jesus did or taught is IN the Bible. Yet, in Matt. 28:20, Jesus commanded the Apostles (and by extension, their successors), to go forth and teach EVERYTHING that He had taught them. There’s a gap, if you believe that the Christian faith is dependent upon the Bible alone. The gap is covered by Sacred Tradition, a.k.a., Holy Tradition, which St. Paul talks about as being equal to written tradition (Scripture) in 2 Thes 2:15.
5. Without an authentic interpreter, you end up with the constant, never-ending splintering that we see in Protestantism, with its tens of thousands of man-made denominations, all disagreeing on their personal interpretation of Scripture and all claiming to be “led by the Holy Spirit” in their contradictory interpretations of Scripture. The authentic interpreter of Christ’s truths is the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, i.e., the Pope and the bishops in league with him. 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Nowhere does it say the individual personally interpreting Scripture is anything of the sort. In fact, 2 Peter 1:20 talks against this sort of “personal” approach.

 

[WJL]

This is how I responded:

*"No, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church are considered to be of equal authority. None is ‘superior’ to the other. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching and were passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). These teachings overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. Also, the Catholic Church has always used Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together in understanding its theology, so it isn’t entirely accurate to refer to it solely as the ‘Middle Ages treatment.’

Bibles were available for people to read privately in churches throughout the history of the Catholic Church. But, before the advent of printing, books were rare and valuable. Each Bible was written by hand and it took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. Thus, they were often fastened down to a desk or lectern near a window to prevent theft—the way a phone book is secured in a phone booth—to make it available to everyone."*

And this is his response:

“Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are all equal, to the Catholic Church. Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology? Your point about Bibles being scarce only lends credibility toward the option of having the select few, namely Catholic Church, provide theology, rather then a common methodology for the Bible so that all can gain Biblical theology, not just from the church. It shows the Bible functioning in a ecclesiastical, rather then a methodological framework.”

Any suggestions on how to respond?

 

[JM3]

And this is his response:

“Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are all equal, to the Catholic Church. Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology? Your point about Bibles being scarce only lends credibility toward the option of having the select few, namely Catholic Church, provide theology, rather then a common methodology for the Bible so that all can gain Biblical theology, not just from the church. It shows the Bible functioning in a ecclesiastical, rather then a methodological framework.”

Any suggestions on how to respond?

“Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are all equal, to the Catholic Church.”

1. No, the Catholic Church IS the Magisterium.

“Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology?”

1. This is Sacred Tradition.

The history of the Church is littered with heresies that ignored the ‘methodology’ of the Church.

‘A common methodology so that all can gain Biblical theology’? Perhaps he should write about the thousands of protestants churches who each have their own methodology and interpretation of ‘Biblical theology’.

 

[JM3]

And this is his response:

*“Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are all equal, to the Catholic Church. Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology? **Your point about Bibles being scarce only lends credibility toward the option of having the select few, namely Catholic Church, provide theology, ***rather then a common methodology for the Bible so that all can gain Biblical theology, not just from the church. It shows the Bible functioning in a ecclesiastical, rather then a methodological framework.”

Any suggestions on how to respond?

He needs to learn about the culture of the Middle Ages and stop imposing his culture onto them. Until he can do this, he will never understand.

 

[JM3]

St. Vincent of Lerins, in the fifth century, wrote:

“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another… Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.” From The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John R Willis, S.J.

 

[WJL]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. Very good info.

Additional suggestions as to how to further respond would be appreciated.