Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture

[wmscott]

Therefore, it is the Word that gives life, whether it be by mouth is of no consequence, as that preached by mouth is necessarily and absolutely confined to that blessed and written Word of God that has been handed down by the Church, through the creation, inspiration, preservation, and providence of the Almighty. That is to say, there can be no separation drawn between the verbal and written form of the Word, but only a distinction drawn between their form of delivery and reception. However, the verbal form, even before the written form was established with certainty by the Church, was always confined and bound to the work, will, and Word of God: hence, their can be nothing added to, subtrated from, or substituted in the Word of God, as the revelation between God and man has been completed in the work and person of Christ, and therefore need not be further extended, but merely preached and offered as the only means of salvation and eternal life.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

With your statements in mind and using Sacred Scripture alone is it not written that Christ taught many other things too numerous to be recorded in the NT (John 21:25). Was He teaching how to win friends and influence people? Hardly, how do YOU know what He was teaching? Have YOU been provided all of the secrets the rest of us have been denied? Do you really think that Christ would have wasted his time on trivial matters with the time he had after the resurrection? Christ had a purpose for these unrecorded teachings. I believe he was passing on to the Apostles all that they would need to know to ensure His Church succeeded until He returned.

There are not any Protestant denominations that I know of that has a teaching authority which was granted by Christ. Whereas the Catholic Church has the living teaching authority, established by Christ to protect and correctly interpret Sacred Scripture. This is well documented many times in Sacred Scripture. I have posted this before, however it warrants it aging so that you can fully grasp the subject of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Is the Bible is the only rule of faith? Meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. Also “Is the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages?” furthermore “Is anything extraneous to the Bible simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God?”

Catholics recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view. In fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

Think of a three-legged stool, the seat being the Church Christ himself established here on earth (Catholic Church) each leg of the stool is as follows, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. All three legs of the Catholic Church can be directly revealed in Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are also Biblical. Remove any one element and it all topples.

Dei Verbum
(Latin: “The Word of God”)
Is the relationship between Tradition and Scripture? 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. Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

By the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore, both sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.

 

[WALTHER]

With your statements in mind and using Sacred Scripture alone is it not written that Christ taught many other things too numerous to be recorded in the NT (John 21:25). Was He teaching how to win friends and influence people? Hardly, how do YOU know what He was teaching? Have YOU been provided all of the secrets the rest of us have been denied? Do you really think that Christ would have wasted his time on trivial matters with the time he had after the resurrection? Christ had a purpose for these unrecorded teachings. I believe he was passing on to the Apostles all that they would need to know to ensure His Church succeeded until He returned.

There are not any Protestant denominations that I know of that has a teaching authority which was granted by Christ. Whereas the Catholic Church has the living teaching authority, established by Christ to protect and correctly interpret Sacred Scripture. This is well documented many times in Sacred Scripture. I have posted this before, however it warrants it aging so that you can fully grasp the subject of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Is the Bible is the only rule of faith? Meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. Also “Is the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages?” furthermore “Is anything extraneous to the Bible simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God?”

Catholics recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view. In fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

Think of a three-legged stool, the seat being the Church Christ himself established here on earth (Catholic Church) each leg of the stool is as follows, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. All three legs of the Catholic Church can be directly revealed in Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are also Biblical. Remove any one element and it all topples.

Dei Verbum
(Latin: “The Word of God”)
Is the relationship between Tradition and Scripture? 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. Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

By the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore, both sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.

This takes us in quite another direction, as it is apparent that the Roman Church does not feel the Scriptural text–the written Word of God–possesses perspicuity, efficacy, sufficiency, or authority.

Ultimately, it believes, along with enthusiasts and moderns, that it is man who must illumine the Holy Scriptures; for if man does not, then the Scriptures are left to us a*“closed book”*.

However, Scripture teaches the contrary, namely:

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." [Ps. 119:105]

For instance, the Old Testament’s perspicuity is established in the Gospel of Luke:

**“They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” **[16:29]

In addition, Christ tells those Jews who would not hear His Word:

"Search the Scriptures." [John 5:39]

Furthermore, there is the case of the Bereans in Acts 17:11:

"They searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so."

The Psalmist states plainly that the Scriptures are clear even to the unlearned:

"…making wise the simple." [Ps. 19:7]

The same can be said of the New Testament, as all of the Epistles were written to whole congregations and were to be read publicly–to all–at their meetings together.

St. Peter states the Scripture is a:

"…light shining in a dark place." [II Peter 1:19]

St. Paul tells us that the Scripture is clear enough even for children:

"…from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures."

And also, the writings of St. John (often spoken of by liberals and moderns as being decidedly obscure) were said to be understood, according to St. John himself, by “young men”, and “little children”. *

Lastly, to those who dare charge the Scripture with obscurity, as though the Spirit of God needed lessons in speech, Christ says:

"Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes."

[Matthew 11:25]

And St. Paul, too, writes of them:

"But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

[II Cor. 4:3-4]

Therefore, the Gospel is, of itself, a “glorious light”, needing no illumination from men. Rather, it is the Scriptures that illumine the heart’s of men, creating and sustaining faith in the words and promises that God has declared within. As it is written:

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

[Romans 10:17]

SIncerely,
WALTHER*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, WmScott,

I think this is an excellent anaology:

Think of a three-legged stool, the seat being the Church Christ himself established here on earth (Catholic Church) each leg of the stool is as follows, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. All three legs of the Catholic Church can be directly revealed in Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are also Biblical. Remove any one element and it all topples.

I will use it this evening when I go to our local jail and teach the prisoners about our Catholic Faith and how it intereacts with the Bible. About one-third to one-half on any given night are Protestants who find the use of the Bible by Catholics nothing short of astounding.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Walther,

Now, just hold on a minute there… There are all of these one-liners that appear to be intended to prove that Sola Scruptura is the only way to go. And, I think we need to look at that will a little more depth if we are really going make progress in understanding one another.

This takes us in quite another direction, as it is apparent that the Roman Church does not feel the Scriptural text–the written Word of God–possesses perspicuity, efficacy, sufficiency, or authority.

Ultimately, it believes, along with enthusiasts and moderns, that it is man who must illumine the Holy Scriptures; for if man does not, then the Scriptures are left to us a*“closed book”*.

If I did not know better, Wather, I’d say you were trying to set up a ‘straw man’ that you would not have any trouble knocking down… This is really a bit more complex and, it will take your time and attention.

Just where do you get this, “…it is apparent that the Roman Church does not feel…”? From the time of Christ (Who established His Church [and, that would be the Catholic Church] on Peter) until about almost 400 there was no New Testament as you would recognize it. Why? The Canon of Scripture - the very Books that make up the OT and the NT had not yet been determined. This is no small item to dismiss as a trivial technicality. How do you think the Word of God wa spread from 33AD on until about 400AD? While you are ponder that … let’s go on … and then I will come back to this to tie up the lose ends from your one-liners.

And also, the writings of St. John (often spoken of by liberals and moderns as being decidedly obscure) were said to be understood, according to St. John himself, by “young men”, and “little children”. *

Lastly, to those who dare charge the Scripture with obscurity, as though the Spirit of God needed lessons in speech, Christ says:*

Hmmmmmmmm… your quotes did not transfer over as I thought they would… So, let me try something different… Both in your quote of Paul and In 1John 2 :1-3 we find the following - “children” is a term of endearment by the writer to his audience, not a description of someone very young of age. For example:

**1
My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
2
He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
3
The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments.
4
Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. **
I think this is more of a context issue … so, let’s go to the beginning of Chapter 2. While you can take the term ‘children’ to mean the plural of ‘child’ or a group of minors, I think you would agree that John was of advanced age when he wrote this - and most of his audience would have been younger then him. Another way to look at this comes from the footnote of the NAB: “Children: like the term “beloved,” this is an expression of pastoral love (cf John 13:33; 21:5; 1 Cor 4:14). Advocate: for the use of the term, see John 14:16. Forgiveness of sin is assured through Christ’s intercession and expiation or “offering”; the death of Christ effected the removal of sin” Here is the link to give you even more information: nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1john/1john2.htm

In 1John 2:12-13 … actually, going a little further… 12-18 … I do not see anything about ‘children understanding the Word of God’ much less any justification for Sola Scriptura from these verses. But, let’s take a closer look at this in context:

**12
I am writing to you, children, because your sins have been forgiven for his name’s sake.
13
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.
14
I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.
15
Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16
For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world.
17
Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.
18
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. **

John is appearing to encourage 3 different groups: young (but, not necessarily those under 12 years of age…) middle aged and older Christians to obey the commands of Christ. At no time did Christ say, “Scripture is the only item you must follow for your salvation!” Why? Well, a good reason is that none of the NT had even begun to be written prior to His Resurrection. Ultimately, in my opinion, anyone who would claim that children can understand the Bible would probably be amazed that there are so many (20,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming different things [e.g., Baptism is necessary / No! Baptism is not necessary] and each claiming Sola Scriptura as the basis for their claim.
WALTHER;5566730:

Lastly, to those who dare charge the Scripture with obscurity, as though the Spirit of God needed lessons in speech… **(Bear in mind that Christ hid everything from the Jews in parables, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their hears and understand…!) **

,

In reality, one-liners really do not work in trying to prove something from Scripture. Why? With so many words - and not a lot of effort to maintain context - the Bible can be made to say virtually anything you want it to say … If you look at the OT as a whole, we find God promising mankind a Savior and making a deliberate and exclusive choice of the Hebrews, later called the Jews, to be His People. In the NT we find Christ came into the world, established a Chruch and fulfilled His Mission by dying on the Cross and deliberately choosing all people to be saved (but, there are things we must do to fulfill God’s Plan in our lives…working in and with the Church He founded on Peter is one of them).

God bless

 

[wmscott]

This takes us in quite another direction, as it is apparent that the Roman Church does not feel the Scriptural text–the written Word of God–possesses perspicuity, efficacy, sufficiency, or authority.

Thank God this is only you opinion, I am amazed that you can come up with a statement like this and really put it out here and expect it to be taken seriously. By the way, it is not the “Roman Church”; it is the Catholic Church, Latin Rite. When using the term “Roman Church” it has undertones of anti-Catholicism. As for the Catholic Church, Latin Rite, Sacred Scripture does in fact possess complete clarity, worth, sufficiency, and authority. If you will step back a second a take a close look, the Catholic Church’ s Faith and Doctrines are rooted in Sacred Scripture. Why would the Catholic Church want to debase Sacred Scripture? You do not have to agree with the Catholic Faith, however, making baseless accusations serves no purpose.

 

[wmscott]

Hi, WmScott,

I think this is an excellent anaology:

I will use it this evening when I go to our local jail and teach the prisoners about our Catholic Faith and how it intereacts with the Bible. About one-third to one-half on any given night are Protestants who find the use of the Bible by Catholics nothing short of astounding.

God bless

Sometimes simplicity is the best

 

[Crumpy]

Hello NHInsider,

I suppose the question that ought to be asked is whether or not tradition and Scripture are co-equal, or whether one is, in some measure,* subordinate* to the other.

By Roman Catholic understanding, and as your post agrees, the Sacred Scriptures are made subordinate to church tradition. This is due to the Roman Catholic view of the cause, origin, and formulation of the canon; being one created by the church rather than one discovered by her.

Is this a proper rendering of your view?

Sincerely,
WALTHER

No, that’s not quite “it.” The Catholic Church holds to scripture and tradition equally, not subordinating scripture to tradition.

I’ve been reading a lot of Jewish bible commentary, and this may be illustrative of what tradition is.

The Jewish Scripture is what Catholics would call “the old testament.” Now, the Jewish scholars call that the Written Torah (written teaching, direction). Then, they developed the Mishnah around 200 AD, which was a partial commentary on the Scripture. Then, because the Mishnah wasn’t complete, more scholars contributed to a later commentary which became known as the Talmud (“study”). Although actually written down, that was called the Oral Torah. Some felt the need to provide additional commentary, so along came the Midrash, which is also a supplementary commentary. All of these taken together form the definition of Judaism (what gentiles call the Jewish faith) or Torah (which is what the Jews call their religion).

Catholic thinking on “Tradition” is along parallel lines, that starts with the teaching of the Apostles.

Clearly, the best example of Tradition is that the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the consecrated bread and wine, at Mass, become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This tradition is anchored in Scripture and certainly in the teaching of the apostles in the New Testament. This tradition is clearly evident in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[WALTHER]

tqualey,

No straw man necessary, Tom. It is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that Scripture is manifestly obscure, and it is only by the interpretation of the Pope and the magisterium that the Scriptures are able to reveal any doctrine of certainty. Is this not true?

You write:

From the time of Christ…until about almost 400 there was no New Testament as you would recognize it. Why? The Canon of Scripture…had not yet been determined. …How do you think the Word of God wa spread from 33AD on until about 400AD?

The councils that determined the proper New Testament canon of Scripture were not made necessary by any substantial discord between the orthodox fathers, but rather by the several pernicious heretical sects, that deemed the Scriptures either contradictory, unnecessary, or uninspired.

Many, if not all, of these writings are documented as being cited and/or alluded to, and/or named as authentic, by Pseudo-Barnabas (c. 70-130), Clement of Rome (c. 95-97), Ignatius (c. 110), Polycarp (c. 110-50), Hermas (c. 115-40), Didache (c. 120-50), Papias (c. 130-40), Diognetus (c. 150), It is significant to note here that these Apostolic and Sub-Apostolic Church Fathers coincide with the Apostolic Age, and that as early as 150 A.D. the New Testament was already established as being equally authoritative with the Old Testament Scripture]

Justin Martyr (c. 150-55), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Tertullian (c. 150-220), Origen (c. 185-254), Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Tatian (c. 110-80), Hippolytus (c. 170-236), Cyprian (c. 200-258), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86), Eusebius (c. 325-40), Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 295-373) The Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers]

Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397), Jerome (c. 340-420), and Augustine (c. 400), John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428), Gregory I (c. 540-604), Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109), Hugh (d. 1142), Richard (d. 1173), and Andrew (d. 1175), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) The Great Medieval Church Fathers]

The canons of the first four centuries also testify to the New Testament’s authenticity. Yes, even Marcion (c. 140) included Luke, Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, and Titus. Muratorian (c. 170) included all but Hebrews, James, and I & II Peter—I Peter being the only book from the homolegoumena). The Apostolic canon (c. 300) included all but Revelation (antilogomena). Cheltenham (c. 360) included all but the antilegomena. Athanasius included all books of the present New Testament.

Further still, the councils of the 4th century all affirm emphatically the homolegoumena, and later the antilegomena (though not as certainly). These councils were Nicea (c. 325-40), Hippo (c. 393), Carthage (c. 397), and Carthage (c. 419).

Moreover, the Scriptures themselves testify to their authority and inspiration by virtue of their own confession, as St. Peter writes of Paul’s writings:

"And count the patience of the Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." [II Peter 3:15-16]

Therefore St. Peter identifies–absolutely–the writings of St. Paul with the Old Testament Scripture.

Let me ask you this: did the inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament objectively precede the decree of the councils of the 4th century, or did these books acquire inspiration (being formerly uninspired then) by sole virtue of a council’s decree?

You write:

John is appearing to encourage 3 different groups: young (but, not necessarily those under 12 years of age…) middle aged and older Christians to obey the commands of Christ… there are 20,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming different things…and each claiming Sola Scriptura as the basis for their claim.

Firstly, it is immaterial to this discussion the precise age of such children. Even if they were 12 years old, does this not presuppose a perspicuous Scripture?

What of the Bereans, who were able to search the Scriptures to see if the words of Paul were in conformity and agreement with the Word of God? [Acts 17:11]

What of the many verses of the Psalmist that affirm, all in similar manner, that:

"The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple." [Ps. 119:30]

What of St. Peter’s words:

"…you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for ‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you." **

Therefore, St. Peter, also here, identifies–absolutely–the verbal word of their preaching with the written word of Scripture.

Now, as to your claim that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the cause of the various divisions among Christ’s Church, the true cause of division is, not due to the plain and clear teachings and doctrine of Christ, but due only to the wicked and perverted will of men; as all Protestant sects that deny the profit or benefit of baptism, namely, “…forgiveness of sins, deliverance from death and the devil, and the gift of eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare”, have allowed their own theological ego to interpret the Scriptures, rather than allow Scripture to interpret itself. “Faith” is wrongly made the measure of the Scriptures, rather than the Scriptures rightly being made the measure of faith.

Furthermore, how does your argument acheive any credibility when the schism between the Roman and Eastern churches resulted, not from the Eastern church’s subscription to Sola Scriptura, but rather from who was the rightful possessor of the papal office?

In addition, what of those many churches today, who stand apart from Rome, and who also do not subscribe to the Sola Scriptura doctrine?

Certainly, then, simply because a thing can be destorted, perverted, or altered, does not entail that the thing destorted, perverted, or altered is not able to be the sole norm, rule, and authority of the Church; seeing that, if this were indeed your argument, you would then have to give up the papal office as the sole norm, rule, and authority; as it, too, has proven to be a direct source of schismatic activities.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

Thank God this is only you opinion, I am amazed that you can come up with a statement like this and really put it out here and expect it to be taken seriously. By the way, it is not the “Roman Church”; it is the Catholic Church, Latin Rite. When using the term “Roman Church” it has undertones of anti-Catholicism. As for the Catholic Church, Latin Rite, Sacred Scripture does in fact possess complete clarity, worth, sufficiency, and authority. If you will step back a second a take a close look, the Catholic Church’ s Faith and Doctrines are rooted in Sacred Scripture. Why would the Catholic Church want to debase Sacred Scripture? You do not have to agree with the Catholic Faith, however, making baseless accusations serves no purpose.

This is hardly a “baseless accusation”, wmscott. Rather, it is a definitive formulation of the Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of the Scriptures I grew up the Roman Catholic and I also have many Roman Catholic friends, and I have never heard anyone complain about being called a Roman Catholic].

As to the authority of the Word, Scripture is placed upon supposedly “equal” ground with tradition. However, by creating a co-authority, the latter has necessarily devoured the former.

As to the perspicuity of the Word, Scripture is deemed a “closed book” without and apart from the foreign “illuminating light” of the pope and the magisterium.

As to the efficacy of the Word, Scripture is conceived of as providing faith conditionally, rather than actually. This meaning, the preaching of the Word produces the possibility of faith, not the actuality of it, as man must “cooperate” with the Holy Spirit, with man’s own “free-will”.

As to the sufficiency of the Word, Scripture is thought to be insufficient in regards to its possessing all that is necessary for salvation in Christ (Grace by faith for Christ’s sake). Rather, again, the pope and the teaching office of the church is made the “completing factor” of God’s revelation of salvation to man.

Although we might begin another thread for this discussion, I would be interested in understanding how the doctrine of man’s preparation for grace, the heathens salvation apart from faith in Christ, the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, man’s free will, etc., etc., etc. are somehow dogmas “rooted” in the Scriptures.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

Crumpy writes:

Clearly, the best example of Tradition is that the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the consecrated bread and wine, at Mass, become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This tradition is anchored in Scripture and certainly in the teaching of the apostles in the New Testament. This tradition is clearly evident in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

The truth of Christ’s substantial physical presence and union in the elements of the Lord’s Supper is undeniably a teaching of Scripture. However, this dogma is in no way derived from tradition apart from the Word, but is founded upon the Word absolutely.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[hatsoff]

The truth of Christ’s substantial physical presence and union in the elements of the Lord’s Supper is undeniably a teaching of Scripture. However, this dogma is in no way derived from tradition apart from the Word, but is founded upon the Word absolutely.

It’s not an undeniable teaching of Scripture at all. Now, you can interpret the Bible in support of the doctrine. Perhaps you could even make a convincing case that yours is the best interpretation. But it is not expressly stated in the Bible.

 

[WALTHER]

It’s not an undeniable teaching of Scripture at all. Now, you can interpret the Bible in support of the doctrine. Perhaps you could even make a convincing case that yours is the best interpretation. But it is not expressly stated in the Bible.

Actually, it is:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" **

And again:

"This that is, the bread

] is my body which is for you." **

And again:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup

of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." **

Thus the sacramental union of Christ’s body with the elements of bread and wine is unmistakably taught in the Holy Scriptures. It is the way in which this sacramental union occurs that is left to naked human interpretation and devising.

Therefore, we ought only to concern ourselves with the “what” of Scripture, namely, that the bread and wine are united with Christ’s body and blood in a mysterious manner, and are truly given to us for the forgiveness sins, rather than concern ourselves with the “how”, namely, the method and/or means employed by God that allows for this most holy mystery to occur.

An analogy to this being the union of Christ’s two natures in one essence; that is, His humanity and divinity. Scripture undeniably teaches that Christ was “made flesh” [John 1:14]. However, this does obliderate the divinity of Christ, nor does it obliderate His humanity, as though one were necessarily excluded by His becoming flesh. But rather, the Scriptures affirm the dual nature of Christ both emphatically and repeatedly. Therefore, we are to concern ourselves only with the “what”, namely, that Christ is both God and man, both begotten of the Father from eternity and born of the Virgin Mary, and not concern ourselves with the “how”, namely, the way and manner in which both humanity and divinity might co-exist in unity.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[hatsoff]

Actually, it is:

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” *

And again:

“This [that is, the bread] is my body which is for you.” *

And again:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.” *

Thus the sacramental union of Christ’s body with the elements of bread and wine is unmistakably taught in the Holy Scriptures. It is the way in which this sacramental union occurs that is left to naked human interpretation and devising. ***

Observe that there’s nothing in those quotations regarding the “substantial physical presence” of Christ in the ritual. Nor do we hear of any “union,” but rather of a “participation” or “communion.” So I’m not sure how you think they make your case.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Walther,

I think it would be easier - at least for me - if we stayed on just a few topics rather then roaming all over the shoreline in search of a harbor. So, let me respond to what I can…

No straw man necessary, Tom. It is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that Scripture is manifestly obscure, and it is only by the interpretation of the Pope and the magisterium that the Scriptures are able to reveal any doctrine of certainty. Is this not true?

No. As a matter of fact this is not true. When you speak of “Scripture” you are speaking about the entire body we know as The Bible - and this is a rather large text. There is no ‘official’ guide on all of Scripture because the Church has wanted Scripture Scholars to research as much as they can about the Peoples, Places, Times, Governments, Economies, Worship and anything else that will aid in our understand of this more inspired Word of God. This is the scholarship that encourage thought and the development of insight into the actions of God on man.

The best authorative source I can give you is the Catechism of the Chatholic Church (from Section III, items 109 - 119) Forgive me while I quote this at length - but, before I begin, I would like to point out two items to you:

1.) That for about 1,500 years, the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ were part of the Chruch of Christ (and that would be the Catholic Church) before Luther & Co decided to formulate their own church. So, from that standpont, I guess you could say that Scripture was obscure to Luther and the other ‘Reformers’.

2.) Christ came to earth to save us from our sins - and the way He Divinely Chose to do this was to establish His Church - not to write a Book. Look at what He did, who He commissioned to lead His Church, the mission He gave to His Apostles and the tremendous life gien to His Chruch on Pentecost by the Holy Spirit (who, it should be pointed out, did not deliver a Book).

Here is Section III:
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

**109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.**

God bless

 

[WALTHER]

Observe that there’s nothing in those quotations regarding the “substantial physical presence” of Christ in the ritual. Nor do we hear of any “union,” but rather of a “participation” or “communion.” So I’m not sure how you think they make your case.

It is quite simple really:

1.) The bread and wine are said to be Christ’s body “This* is* My Body” etc.]

2.) The bread and wine are said to remain, not as illusions, but truly and substantially “Whoever eats of the bread and drinks of the cup in an unworthy manner is guilty of the body and blood of Christ”; “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? The cup that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” etc.]

Therefore, Christ’s body and blood are said to be the bread and wine, and yet, the bread and wine remain with the body and blood of Christ, thereby demonstrating the true and substantial physical presence in the Supper.

And as written of before, the hypostatic union is analogous to this, in that it, too, speaks of God being made flesh, and yet the flesh remaining. The flesh of Christ was not transubstantiated, but rather it was made in union with the divinity of the Son of God, though this is a mystery.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[tqualey]

Hi Walther,

Now… on to some of your other concerns…

Here you bring up an intresting - but, honestly, a rather distracting, topic… the “why” of something as though to counter-point this with the action itself.

The councils that determined the proper New Testament canon of Scripture were not made necessary by any substantial discord between the orthodox fathers, but rather by the several pernicious heretical sects, that deemed the Scriptures either contradictory, unnecessary, or uninspired.

I will not argue as to the various reasons for these Councils. The meat of the nut is that prior to 400A.D. there was no recognized Canon - and after the Council Fathers of the Catholic Chruch got together - there was the Canon. These recognized books of the Bible withstood the test of time - and of Luther & Co - to re-craft a document more in their own image and in accordance with the newly minted beliefs of their own church(es). This is not an insignificant issue. I think one of th true victories in this entire sad area was the re-establishement of the Book of James - specifically where he takes on ‘Faith Alone" in Chapter 2. As I recall, Luther was quite critical of James’ Inspired Work - but, it is James - and not Luther who prevailed in the Books of the NT.

Thank you for the list of Early Church Fathers - I find it personally enriching to see how the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) survived through the Roman persecution and developed such a dynamic and positive role for all who came after. There can be no doubt that the Canon established by these Councils represents the Inspiration fo the Holy Spirit protecting Christ’s Church from teaching error.

I would, however like to point out three additonal things:

1.) None of these ECF enjoyed the guaranteed guidance from the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to His Chruch and ,

2.) Marcion (c. 140) was not only into dualism but was antisemetic - he could not reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT - and selected his books accordingly. Marcion’s only claim to fame, I think… was that he got the process statred that ended before 400 in the establishment of the Canon and,

3.) Ultimately 1,100 years later, certain OT writings that were part of the Canon were torn out by Luther because they did not agree with his view of how things should be. No effort at ‘reforming’ in this area - just wholesale attempted destruction of the Inspired Word of God.

Let me ask you this: did the inspiration of the 27 books of the New Testament objectively precede the decree of the councils of the 4th century, or did these books acquire inspiration (being formerly uninspired then) by sole virtue of a council’s decree?

To the best of my knowledge, prior to the establishment of the Canon, (and this includes ALL OF THE BOOKS OF THE OT & NT - Not just the NT) a person was free to believe what he read unless it was specifically condemned by the Catholic Church. The “Gospel of St. Thomas” a Gnostic fraud among others - was condemned. There were other writings however that could be considered as pious and religiously focused writings - that were not inspired. The Canon is the defining moment for the Bible (you see, the Bible itself has no ‘Table of Contents’ - that was authoratively and infallably put there by the Catholic Church).

What of the Bereans, who were able to search the Scriptures to see if the words of Paul were in conformity and agreement with the Word of God?

You will recall that Paul would make it a habit of going to the synagogue of the towns he visited and preaching to the Jews. He was, as a Pharisee, very knowledgeable in Scripure and aided by the Holy Spirit, preach Christ as the Savior of the world from the text available in these synagogues. No doubt about it - Paul was a hard working man in bringing the message of Christ to everyone. I guess I do not undersand your point… what is your particular concern with this section of Acts?

This is really as far as I can go - I have run out of steam and will have an early day tomorrow…

God bless

 

[WALTHER]

tqualey,

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

You write:

Ultimately 1,100 years later, certain OT writings that were part of the Canon were torn out by Luther because they did not agree with his view of how things should be. No effort at ‘reforming’ in this area - just wholesale attempted destruction of the Inspired Word of God.

Actually, Luther’s Bible included the Apocrypha.

You also write:

To the best of my knowledge, prior to the establishment of the Canon, (and this includes ALL OF THE BOOKS OF THE OT & NT - Not just the NT) a person was free to believe what he read unless it was specifically condemned by the Catholic Church. The “Gospel of St. Thomas” a Gnostic fraud among others - was condemned. There were other writings however that could be considered as pious and religiously focused writings - that were not inspired. The Canon is the defining moment for the Bible (you see, the Bible itself has no ‘Table of Contents’ - that was authoratively and infallably put there by the Catholic Church).

Then inspiration occurred only at that moment of the council defining it so?
Were these writings in any way inspired prior to the church’s decree?

You also write:

I guess I do not undersand your point… what is your particular concern with this section of Acts?

My point concerning the Bereans in Acts 17:11 is simply this: they were able to discern, from the Old Testament Scriptures, that the Word of St. Paul was, indeed, identical to the Word of God. This irrefutably demonstrates the perspicuity of the Scriptures.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Walther,

I read your post on the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Unless, I missed something, your post sounded like Catholic doctrine to me.

Now, on to your quesiton:

Then inspiration occurred only at that moment of the council defining it so?
Were these writings in any way inspired prior to the church’s decree?

As I understand the matter, inspiration happened as the author was writing the material - God did not dictate the words but was able to get His Divine Message into the words of men. So, these documents were inspired long before the Catholic Church developed the Canon.

The matter really hinges on the fact that these inspired written works were not the only written works to be considered. The Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit determined which Books were inspired and which books were not. To this day - the Books in the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) are considered inspired - the big difference is that Protestant Bible is intentionally not complete.

Someone else had mentioned St. Jerome having placed these Books aside since he was not convinced of their authenticity. Yes, this is a fact - but, it is also a fact that Jerome did not have the guarantee of not teaching error. Jerome made his opinion known, it was considered and then the Holy Spirit, working through the Church made the selection. To say other-wise (the Council simply signed-off on Jerome’s work) would be a complete mis-representation of the role of Jerome and the Council. Jerome did an excellent job - but - he submitted his work to the Church who made the final selection.

God bless.