Play by Play v. Color Commentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
When announcing a football game on TV, Pat Summerall takes the play-by-play announcement while John Madden does the “color commentary” adding to and given additional insight into what just happened on each play.

In this analogy, Summerall is giving us the details of what happens during each play while Madden breaks it down and explains different aspects of it. For example, Summerall’s call tells you that the quarterback drops back, has protection, sees a man open, fires into the endzone. Touch down! Washington Redskins.

Madden hits the instant replay button, takes his magic marker, and starts describing and diagramming blocking assignments that picked up the blitz, the crossing pattern that sprung the open man, and the blown coverage in the secondary that resulted in the reception in the endzone. He also connects that play to a similar one from earlier in the game and another from last week’s game.

Same play. Two different perspectives. One adding to our overall understanding of the other.

Sacred Scripture is the play-by-play. We see the words, but don’t always understand exactly what they mean. Tradition provides the color commentary in other words that we can understand.

Scripture is the ipsisima verba of God - each and every word chosen by God; Tradition is the ipsisima vox of God - the same thing in other words.

Scripture is inspired and infallible. Tradition is infallible. Why do we need Tradition if it is not inspired? Because it gives us additional insight in other words that make Scripture comprehensible to us in our own day.

Can we trust Tradition if it is not inspired? Absolutely. Things don’t need to be inspired to be trustworthy - they just need to be true. Truth is necessary of trust, not inspiration.

God cannot teach error, so anything he taught the Apostles is automatically infallible. The original Apostles taught with the same Authority as Jesus did since He gave His authority to them when he breathed on them in John 20. Therefore, anything they taught was infallible. Finally, the Apostles passed on their authority via the laying on of hands to the Bishops who came after them in a process known as Apostolic Succession. Thus, the Church’s leaders today speak with the same Apostolic Authority in maintaining the Tradition, or color commentary, of the Church.

Scripture has primacy over Tradition, and we look to Scripture first, but we also look to Tradition for an infallible interpretation and understanding of Scripture This concept is known in Catholic theology is known as Prima Scriptura.
 
Right.
BUT when we find tradition that does not support your stance, it does not count.
But lets use your football analogy.
ABC, Madden and Summerall(I think they are ABC but Lord who cares) are calling the official game but if ESPN radio or some other announcer sees differing details to the game…well they are not OFFICIAL ABC announcers and should be ignored.
 
Right.
BUT when we find tradition that does not support your stance, it does not count.
But lets use your football analogy.
ABC, Madden and Summerall(I think they are ABC but Lord who cares) are calling the official game but if ESPN radio or some other announcer sees differing details to the game…well they are not OFFICIAL ABC announcers and should be ignored.
Right. Because Summerall and Madden are infallible.

The Extraordinarily Spurious Protestant Network (ESPN) is not.👍
 
Right. Because Summerall and Madden are infallible.

The Extraordinarily Spurious Protestant Network (ESPN) is not.👍
Funny:D
but not quite accurate.😉
both announcers are from the same era, you just listen to the ones that agree with your present view. Because why? There are no infallible documents outside of scripture for how long to compare the ECF with?
 
When announcing a football game on TV, Pat Summerall takes the play-by-play announcement while John Madden does the “color commentary” adding to and given additional insight into what just happened on each play.

In this analogy, Summerall is giving us the details of what happens during each play while Madden breaks it down and explains different aspects of it. For example, Summerall’s call tells you that the quarterback drops back, has protection, sees a man open, fires into the endzone. Touch down! Washington Redskins.

Madden hits the instant replay button, takes his magic marker, and starts describing and diagramming blocking assignments that picked up the blitz, the crossing pattern that sprung the open man, and the blown coverage in the secondary that resulted in the reception in the endzone. He also connects that play to a similar one from earlier in the game and another from last week’s game.

Same play. Two different perspectives. One adding to our overall understanding of the other.

Sacred Scripture is the play-by-play. We see the words, but don’t always understand exactly what they mean. Tradition provides the color commentary in other words that we can understand.

Scripture is the ipsisima verba of God - each and every word chosen by God; Tradition is the ipsisima vox of God - the same thing in other words.

Scripture is inspired and infallible. Tradition is infallible. Why do we need Tradition if it is not inspired? Because it gives us additional insight in other words that make Scripture comprehensible to us in our own day.

Can we trust Tradition if it is not inspired? Absolutely. Things don’t need to be inspired to be trustworthy - they just need to be true. Truth is necessary of trust, not inspiration.

God cannot teach error, so anything he taught the Apostles is automatically infallible. The original Apostles taught with the same Authority as Jesus did since He gave His authority to them when he breathed on them in John 20. Therefore, anything they taught was infallible. Finally, the Apostles passed on their authority via the laying on of hands to the Bishops who came after them in a process known as Apostolic Succession. Thus, the Church’s leaders today speak with the same Apostolic Authority in maintaining the Tradition, or color commentary, of the Church.

Scripture has primacy over Tradition, and we look to Scripture first, but we also look to Tradition for an infallible interpretation and understanding of Scripture This concept is known in Catholic theology is known as Prima Scriptura.
Tradition is not infallible.
Tradition is made by men, Not by God.
This is the reason we do not accept it.
Especially if the tradition contradicts something in the bible.
I know that in matters of Sacred Tradition contradicting the bible, tradition wins out.
The catholic position is that the tradition holds more weight.
I do not accept that position.
 
Tradition is not infallible.
Tradition is made by men, Not by God.
This is the reason we do not accept it.
Especially if the tradition contradicts something in the bible.
I know that in matters of Sacred Tradition contradicting the bible, tradition wins out.
The catholic position is that the tradition holds more weight.
I do not accept that position.
Tradition is infallible.
Tradition is the Word of God in other words.
Tradition serves Scripture; it does not win out.
The Bible holds more weight if it is properly interpreted. Otherwise, it can be twisted to one’s own destruction.

Scripture + Tradition + the Magisterium are the three legs of a stool that stands firmly upright. They are tightly woven together and cannot be separated.
 
Tradition is not infallible.
Tradition is made by men, Not by God.
This is the reason we do not accept it.
Especially if the tradition contradicts something in the bible.
I know that in matters of Sacred Tradition contradicting the bible, tradition wins out.
The catholic position is that the tradition holds more weight.
I do not accept that position.
In what way does Sacred Traditon contradict the Bible?
 
Tradition is not infallible.
Tradition is made by men, Not by God.
This is the reason we do not accept it.
Especially if the tradition contradicts something in the bible.
** I know that in matters of Sacred Tradition contradicting the bible, tradition wins out.**
** The catholic position is that the tradition holds more weight.**
I do not accept that position.
Where does it say that Catholics give Tradition more weight than the Bible.

You wouldn’t be mis-interpreting Catholic teaching again, now would you?

**How can I trust your interpretation of the Bible if I can’t trust your interpretation of Catholic teaching?
**
Once again, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church Magisterium are EQUAL in authority. They are the three legs of the stool that support the Christ’s Church, and they do NOT contradict.
 
Where does it say that Catholics give Tradition more weight than the Bible.

You wouldn’t be mis-interpreting Catholic teaching again, now would you?

**How can I trust your interpretation of the Bible if I can’t trust your interpretation of Catholic teaching?
**
Once again, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church Magisterium are EQUAL in authority. They are the three legs of the stool that support the Christ’s Church, and they do NOT contradict.
A priest told me that Sacred Tradition outweighs scripture. I think it is common knowledge. Ask an apologist.
 
Scripture has primacy over Tradition, and we look to Scripture first, but we also look to Tradition for an infallible interpretation and understanding of Scripture This concept is known in Catholic theology is known as Prima Scriptura.
Randy,

You do realize that there are quite a few catholics (even apologists) who would certainly disagree with your above statement.

Afterall, according to you guys it is the magesterium that interprets scripture, decides the canon, and decides what is and what isn’t in the bounds of “apostolic tradition”.

I have no idea how you can claim prima scriptura.
 
A simple one would be Immaculate Conception contradicts Luke1:47 and Luke2:24
Luke 1:47 "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior

Luke 2:24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,”

I don’t see how either of those verses has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Do you even know what the Immaculate Conception means?
 
Luke 1:47 "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior

Luke 2:24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,”

I don’t see how either of those verses has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Do you even know what the Immaculate Conception means?
Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without sin. If she was concieved without sin why did she need a savior in Lk1:47?
If she had no sin why was she bringing a sin offering to the temple in Lk 2:24?
 
A priest told me that Sacred Tradition outweighs scripture. I think it is common knowledge. Ask an apologist.
Your priest was wrong. Sacred Tradition has no more authority than Sacred Scripture and does not outweigh it.

You can check the Catechism on-line before making this statement again.
 
Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without sin. If she was concieved without sin why did she need a savior in Lk1:47?
Wouldn’t her savior be Him who saw to her being conceived without sin?

No contradiction, here.
If she had no sin why was she bringing a sin offering to the temple in Lk 2:24?
What Mary is doing is being a loyal Jew, for Jewish Law dictated it. Just as Jesus did, she in no way put herself above the law.
 
Wouldn’t her savior be Him who saw to her being conceived without sin?

No contradiction, here.

What Mary is doing is being a loyal Jew, for Jewish Law dictated it. Just as Jesus did, she in no way put herself above the law.
So Mary was stating in Lk1:47, that she was saved of original sin while she was in her mother’s womb. And she realized this some supernatural way. And Jesus’ death on the cross did nothing for her because she was already sinless?
This is your belief?
If you read Matt11:11, does your theology assert that John the Baptist was also sinless because Jesus Himself said"among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist." So if John was greater than Mary wouldn’t he have to be sinless also?
 
So Mary was stating in Lk1:47, that she was saved of original sin while she was in her mother’s womb. And she realized this some supernatural way. And Jesus’ death on the cross did nothing for her because she was already sinless?
This is your belief?
If you read Matt11:11, does your theology assert that John the Baptist was also sinless because Jesus Himself said"among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist." So if John was greater than Mary wouldn’t he have to be sinless also?
John was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from the Mother’s womb.

It does not say he remained sinless, and the Church doesn’t teach either way, so I don’t feel like presuming.

John died fulfilling God’s Will. There is no greater love than to be willing to die for someone.
 
Everybody follows tradition—Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, everybody.

I don’t know of anyone who ever took their religion from their scriptures alone. They relied on the preaching of their pastor as to which books of the bible were more important, which verses were important, what doctrines could be derived from which verses. Nobody ever just picked up a bible and devised a religion in a vacuum. If it were tried, I daresay you would not find two who derived the same religion from the same book.

The reason is simple. The bible, like any book, can not teach—either fallibly or infallibly. Only persons can teach, and persons can answer questions and direct one to where to find answers.

So evangelicals follow their tradition. Baptists follow their tradition. Methodists follow their tradition. JW’s follow their tradition. It’s what was handed down to them, what they have learned from other persons who taught them or preached to them.

Catholics follow Apostolic tradition. It was handed down from Christ to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church.
 
Randy,

You do realize that there are quite a few catholics (even apologists) who would certainly disagree with your above statement.

Afterall, according to you guys it is the magesterium that interprets scripture, decides the canon, and decides what is and what isn’t in the bounds of “apostolic tradition”.

I have no idea how you can claim prima scriptura.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75
"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."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76
In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • *orally *“by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
  • in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

77
"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

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."40 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”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"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."43

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."44
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top