Doesn’t that depend on the individual?
Actually, by citing SS we are referencing Sacred Tradtion for the Bible does not stand apart from it.
I had in mind the SS passages we reflect upon to discover what God desires from us …as proper worship both at Advent season & year-round too.
We only have to look at the Psalms for that. Every day the Church prays the Psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours. So, we are already doing that. If you want to join in, there are online websites, such as divineoffice.org that have all the hours. Lay people generally pray Morning and Evening Prayer and perhaps Compline. It’s a great way to praise God and enter into the prayer life of the Church all year round. The readings, antiphons, and saints are all geared towards the seasons, Advent and Christmas being focused on now.
As the Church has always taught. . .to love God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.
You didn’t specify the NT.
The OT speaks of Jesus, as well. It’s my daily practice to read the daily Mass readings and meditate on them. I find that sufficient for me.Perhaps it’s because many of us Catholics tend to use Scripture not as ‘find a verse’ but rather seeing things as a whole --the Old Testament fulfilled in the New.
The problem is that SS is a very diluted form of Christianity, and it is difficult to produce a profound relationship with God from ink on paper alone. I guess I am somewhat confused as to your purpose. All “bible” Christians use traditions without knowing it. Example: “It came upon a midnight clear” is a favorite Christmas carol. It’s just not in the bible. The fact that worship occurred is given in scripture. The precise description of that worship is not in there. That, we can only know from tradition.
Actually, it’s Advent.
It is never Tradition Alone, But Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition through the Magisterium (Teaching Body of the Church).
Honor and rightly worship our Creator.
What you do is the same thing that Paul did: He set scripture aside (Acts 15:1-31) and listened to the Church over and above scripture. “He who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16). We honor the Lord by listening to those whom He has sent.
Actually, they quoted Scripture, verses 16-18, and then made their decision based on the fact that the OT regulations had been fulfilled in Christ who commissioned baptism rather than circumcision as the entrance into the household of God. So Paul didn’t set aside Scripture, rather he laid the matter before the leaders of the Church who debated the theological implications, cited Scripture as a witness, and then made their decision, which is the same way the Church has done it down through the centuries, up to and including our own day.
Yes, but it was the Church, by their authority, that cited those scriptures in making the proclamation that Christ was the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. Paul was well learned in the scriptures and did not know how to answer until he went to the Church for a rendering. Scripture was certainly part of it, but the issue could never have been settled by scripture alone.Actually, they quoted Scripture, verses 16-18, and then made their decision based on the fact that the OT regulations had been fulfilled in Christ who commissioned baptism rather than circumcision as the entrance into the household of God. So Paul didn’t set aside Scripture, rather he laid the matter before the leaders of the Church who debated the theological implications, cited Scripture as a witness, and then made their decision, which is the same way the Church has done it down through the centuries, up to and including our own day.
@ brb3 The Bible is the witness to Christ and his Church, which cannot be separated. As G. K. Chesterton cited, one cannot rip a holy book out of the hands of those who wrote it and then claim you will accept the book but not the religion that produced it. The Bible is the product of God’s people, the Israelite prophets and partriarchs as well as the Apostles and a few of their disciples , who were the spiritual descendants of the OT saints to whom God spoke. The Bible was not written to be a proof text for doctrines, but a help and a guide for the Church as a part of the whole of Sacred Tradition which consists of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and the living Magisterium–the bishops united to the Holy Father.
Oh absolutely. I was responding to the idea that Paul “set scripture aside” when he went to the Apostles. He didn’t “personally interpret” them, might be the better way of putting it, but trusted the Church to decide the matter, yes?
I think so. The Church actually interpreted and clarified OT scripture that did not specifically address the issue. This points to the limitations of scripture when used by itself, with no interpretive authority behind it. It is reminiscent of the Bereans (Acts 17), who searched the scriptures, but had no clue that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ until Paul orally preached Christ to them. But, even Saint Paul, for all his stature in the faith, knew that the Church herself had to answer the circumcision issue.Oh absolutely. I was responding to the idea that Paul “set scripture aside” when he went to the Apostles. He didn’t “personally interpret” them, might be the better way of putting it, but trusted the Church to decide the matter, yes?
Yes, indeed. Proper biblical exegesis is not a simple one-to-one interpretation of ideas/beliefs. It’s why we leave it to those to whom Christ gave the authority to interpret and rule on matters of faith and morals.
The bible is not only for specialists. Ordinary Catholics are supposed to read the bible, according to the Holy See.