Scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings

[dcdurel]

Basically, I agree with the title of your thread; what I disagree with is:

a) your claim that because the title of your thread is true, obviously, the correct statement is “Tradition is the source of Church teachings” (My response: neither Scripture nor tradition is the ***source ***of the Church’s teachings–CHRIST IS!)

Then you make yourself above the Church.
The Church teaches, and I quote,
"This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline." Para. 75
I think the Church goes more than just calling Jesus the source of the truth. The Church teaches that “God is Truth …” Par 215
Jesus IS the truth. Don’t you remember Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, …”

Thus, Jesus is the truth. He taught the Church that truth in the Gospel and commanded His apostles to preach this Gospel.
"This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline." As the Church teaches.
Without the Gospel that the apostles preached, we would not have all saving truth.
We would not have the fullness of revelation.

b) various things which have been said or implied by your tone about the position of Scripture in our faith (most especially that it is not as important as Tradition and/or that it merely contains ‘salvation history’ and its depth of meaning is limited beyond that).

I have certainly said that as far as teachings the truths of salvation, scripture is far less than tradition. Again, that is why the Church says scripture MUST be interpreted according to Tradition. We never interpret the teachings of Tradition according to Scripture.

No where, there is NO where has the Church ever taught that scripture is equal to Tradition as far as teachings, as far as learning the faith, as far as having faith. The Church teaches, and the bible is a witness, that faith comes from HEARING. (which means entirely by Tradition) Faith does not come from reading.

But, Scripture is far greater than Tradition as far as salvation history and as far as learning about the example of Jesus, and as far as being a witness to the faith, as far as nourishing the faith and as far as illuminating the faith.

As far as both being the word of God, they are both equal.
**
When the Church says the Gospel is handed down in Scripture and Tradition, that does not mean both are equal in regards to the teachings of salvation. The are not.** The Gospel handed down in Tradition is the source of all saving truth. Faith comes from hearing that Tradition. All the Church believes is handed down in that Tradition.

Scripture is NOT the source of all saving truth.
Faith does NOT come from reading scripture.
All the Church believes is NOT handed down in Scripture.

Scripture and Tradition are disctinct. They have their intended uses. They are equal ONLY in that they are both the word of God therefore we must have equal reverence for them.
But, they are not equal in anything else. Tradition is the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, the Catholic faith.
Scripture is primarily salvation history, and the Gospels are the narratives of the life of Jesus. They have some parts in common, and they are both necessary and together they form one Gospel. But they certainly are not equal. They are very very different and have very different uses.

 

[Rach620]

                          Basically, I agree with the title of your thread; what I disagree with is:

a) your claim that because the title of your thread is true, obviously, the correct statement is “Tradition is the source of Church teachings” (My response: neither Scripture nor tradition is the ***source ***of the Church’s teachings–CHRIST IS!)

Then you make yourself above the Church.
The Church teaches, and I quote,
"This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline." Para. 75
I think the Church goes more than just calling Jesus the source of the truth. The Church teaches that “God is Truth …” Par 215
Jesus IS the truth. Don’t you remember Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, …”

I am in no way putting myself above the Church.

Again, I completely agree with paragraph 75 of the CCC, but I do not limit the meaning of the Gospel in that paragraph to the antecedent ‘that the apostles preached’ as you do. ‘This Gospel’ is the divine revelation made known in Christ Himself.

God is Truth. Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, Jesus Christ HIMSELF is the Truth. Christ, the Incarnate Word, IS divine revelation. The ‘good news’ which is the Gospel is Christ, the Word of God Himself. The Gospel is the source; HE is the SOURCE. He is all there is; there is no revelation besides Christ Himself.

Scripture and Tradition are the *modes of transmission *of the revelation in the person of Christ Himself. They do not stand apart from Him.

This was the point I made in the quote you misinterpreted.

From CCC para. 65:

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.

Thus, Jesus is the truth. He taught the Church that truth in the Gospel and commanded His apostles to preach this Gospel.
"This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline." As the Church teaches.
Without the Gospel that the apostles preached, we would not have all saving truth.
We would not have the fullness of revelation.

Christ wasn’t just the teacher of the Gospel–He IS the good news!

You are incorrect in saying that “without the Gospel *that the apostles preached *we would not have all saving truth.” You are making our salvation contingent upon the human action of the apostles in transmitting divine revelation. This is not true. All of salvation was accomplished by Christ Himself–it was out of gratuitous grace and love that He entrusted the saving message of the Gospel to the apostles. Their work DOES NOT IN ANY WAY complete the ‘fullness of revelation’.

If we read Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document which forms the basis for the teachings on divine revelation in the new CCC, we can see that what the apostolic preaching did was fulfill Christ’s commission to preach the gospel; it *did not *‘complete’ the gospel or ‘the fullness of revelation’.

From your favorite CCC paragraph, #75, my emphasis added:

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.

 

[Rach620]

I have certainly said that as far as teachings the truths of salvation, scripture is far less than tradition. Again, that is why the Church says scripture MUST be interpreted according to Tradition. We never interpret the teachings of Tradition according to Scripture.

How is it possible that Scripture be ‘far less than’ Tradition? What we have from the NT is the written transmission of the Tradition. We hold it in high esteem because we know that it is the Word of God, spoken by Christ through the apostles and later written down. For us, 2000 years later, it is the closest we can really get to the apostolic preaching, and it guides the successors to the apostles even twenty centuries later.

So in a certain sense, we do interpret the teachings of Tradition according to Scripture–that is, when ‘new’ teachings/explanations are offered. This has happened again and again throughout the history of Christianity–just glance at how the teaching of the hypostatic union of Christ’s fully human and fully divine natures in the person of the Word and you can see that again and again the Fathers referred to Scripture as their authority–the written Tradition AND the inerrant Word of God!

No where, there is NO where has the Church ever taught that scripture is equal to Tradition as far as teachings, as far as learning the faith, as far as having faith. The Church teaches, and the bible is a witness, that faith comes from HEARING. (which means entirely by Tradition) Faith does not come from reading.

I see no where that it teaches that they are not equal in importance. Each has its own proper role.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. - Dei Verbum 10

And I’m not sure where you’ve come up with this ‘faith comes from hearing, not from reading’ teaching. Especially because I don’t think that anyone merely ‘reads’ Scripture–and if they do, then they’re doing it wrong! There are so many layers of meaning and lessons to be found in Scripture that they are to be studied and encountered. Not just ‘read’.

Faith really doesn’t come from anything we do, anyway. It’s a gift we are given by God’s superabundant grace and love. We can’t even prepare ourselves to receive that gift if not by His grace (at least that’s what Aquinas teaches…if you have a beef with this, address it to Thomas )

 

[Rach620]

1. Jesus had lots more to tell the disciples but they weren’t able to absorb it all so the Holy Spirit was sent to refresh their memories and to guide them into deeper understanding?

Yeah, it’s #2.

Now, the Catholic Church does not claim to teach new doctrine…she claims to understand the gospel once delivered to the saints more and more clearly so that she can define doctrines with greater precision after years and years of reflection.

Exactly, Randy!

Of course Scripture says that Christ made *everything *known to His apostles. The Incarnate Word IS *everything *in Himself! That’s what’s so great about the incarnation!

But the thing is, walking around with Christ it’s not like the apostles could, with their fallen human capacities, recognize that they were hanging out with *everything *or that *everything *was being made known to them. That’s where the Holy Spirit came in, to help them reach a greater understanding of what had been revealed to them–and the Holy Spirit keeps working in their successors to help us understand even more today!

It’s a great little system, I think, that our Creator ordained for us. It seems to fit us humans just great

 

[dcdurel]

Scripture and Tradition are the *modes of transmission *of the revelation in the person of Christ Himself. They do not stand apart from Him.

When did I imply they came about on their own or that they stood apart from Jesus?
Also, you are limiting Scripture and Tradition. They are not only modes of transmission, they contain and are the Word of God that Jesus taught and preached to the apostles. They contain the Good News, they contain and transmit the Gospel. Thus the Gospel the apostles preached IS the source of all saving truth, because it IS THE WORD OF GOD, and because Jesus made it the source of all saving truth.
If the apostles had not preached and taught the Gospel, we could not have faith. Faith comes from hearing, as St. Paul and the Church teaches. We could not have obtained salvation in this life, (liberation from the slavery of sin). There would be no Church, there would be no New Testament, because there would be no Christians to recognize a New Testament. There would be no no Mass, no baptism, no Eucharist, no confession, and the Jewish authorities would have rejected and burned any writings about a prophet who claimed to be God.
In other words, we would have nothing, and we would know nothing about Jesus. Jesus would have preached, suffered and died and gone into obscurity.

Thus the Church teaches in the Catechism:
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."

I repeat again. The Gospel that was to be “**** the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”**** was the Gospel that Jesus commanded the apostles to preach.**
It was NOT the Gospels that were written. **

The Catechism says the written Gospels contain only contain “certain elements” of this Gospel that was preached.

In other words, the Gospel that the apostles preached contains all the teachings of saving truth.
The Gospels that were written only contain “certain elements” of this Gospel handed down in Tradition.
Thus scripture is NOT the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.

 

[Rach620]

If the apostles had not preached and taught the Gospel, **we could not have faith.**

Where does the Church teach that it is the preaching of the apostles which makes faith possible? This is a severe limit on the power of God’s grace.

Grace is what causes faith. No amount of apostolic teaching/preaching causes faith; instead, its role is to nourish and cultivate what has already been made possible by God.

Of course, because the fullness of truth subsists in the Church founded by Christ and continued by the apostles, the Church allows us to see the truth more clearly than our unassisted reason, but the ‘divine act of faith’ itself requires the grace of God working in the individual person.

Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith. - CCC 169

Faith comes from hearing, as St. Paul and the Church teaches.

I tend to think that when Paul says that ‘faith comes from hearing’ he does not mean *strictly *from hearing. ‘Hearing the Gospel’ I think means encountering the Word of God in whatever form God finds suitable for a particular person. Many of the Fathers have written of the many sensory ways in which we can encounter the Word of God, and none from what I can tell gives primacy to ‘hearing the Gospel preached by the apostles’. This is one way, but not the only way.

We could not have obtained salvation in this life, (liberation from the slavery of sin). There would be no Church, there would be no New Testament, because there would be no Christians to recognize a New Testament. There would be no no Mass, no baptism, no Eucharist, no confession, and the Jewish authorities would have rejected and burned any writings about a prophet who claimed to be God.
In other words, we would have nothing, and we would know nothing about Jesus. Jesus would have preached, suffered and died and gone into obscurity.

Um, Christ achieved all for us, and He established His Church. We don’t need to speculate about what would have happened if He hadn’t done that because it’s silly. God would not send His only Son to suffer, die and rise for our sins and then allow him to sink ‘into obscurity’.

But I think the problem here is that we need to trace *all *of the action of salvation to God, not to the apostles, even as they led the early Church. They were God’s instruments; their actions were determined by His will. It is not ‘without the apostles, we would have nothing;’ it is ‘without God sending His Son and ordaining that His saving Gospel be transmitted by His most perfect Church, we would have nothing’.

 

[Rach620]

I repeat again. The Gospel that was to be “**** the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”**** was the Gospel that Jesus commanded the apostles to preach.**
It was NOT the Gospels that were written. **

The Catechism says the written Gospels contain only contain “certain elements” of this Gospel that was preached.

In other words, the Gospel that the apostles preached contains all the teachings of saving truth.
The Gospels that were written only contain “certain elements” of this Gospel handed down in Tradition.
Thus scripture is NOT the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.

Let me try a new way of explaining what I’m arguing.

Scripture is NOT the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.
Tradition is NOT the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.
The Word of God (Christ Himself) IS the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.

Therefore, we must respect with ‘equal reverence and devotion’ the oral and written modes of transmission of the Word of God, because in them we can encounter Christ and hear the Word of God speaking in every age.

This goes along with what the Catechism (summarizing Dei Verbum) teaches on the issue of divine revelation. Christ Himself is the Word, is the fullness of divine revelation, and

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](http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.htm#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.”

• CCC 76