Scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings

[porthos11]

Scripture is most definitey not the source of the Catholic teachings. The Devil is a liar and sooo subtle. READ YOUR BIBLE! Which is why so many catholics talk about the ‘Catholic fatith’ It is a made up system based on Babylon. Just like ISLAM, its all about works. False works. ITS NOT ABOUT ‘CATHOLIC FAITH’ MY FRIEND IT IS ABOUT FAITH IN GOD!!! Over and over again Jesus said this has happened, this will happen so that the scriptures will/are being fulfilled. The Catholic church has taken parts of scripture and added/subtracted,twisted and moulded them. - For their own benefit. (Go ahead, I challenge you to compare catholic teachings with the Scriptures) God says, “I change Not”
For example: Who said that Mary is the Queen of Heaven? How on earth can she interceed for you!!! The dead are dead. Lord have mercy. Who said that purgatory exists? Who invented the Mass? Who invented Celibacy? How can a priest (a sinner like you and me) give you abolition of sins??? Lord have mercy!! Who invented the Sacraments? A pope? Christ should be the head of the church!!! I find none of this system scriptural. It is the teachings of a catholic system. Like the 5 pillars of Islam you have the 7 sacraments of the catholic church. Open your eyes. Go and read Revelation 17. Call on Jesus. He loves you. Salvation is not complicated. Jesus paid IT ALL!!! Forget about the church and stupid doctrines. Look to Jesus, beautiful, Jesus.

This writing style and forum handle reminds me of the author of a virulent anti-Everything website whose address I will not post here.

Here’s a tip for this poster. Jesus said that we will recognize his followers by their love. John 13:35 (oh look! Bible verse!).

I see no love or charity here, only hate and anger. I therefore question that you are a follower of Christ.

If you truly desire to lead us poor, misguided, uneducated, hellbound Catholics to salvation, try approaching us with more charity, kindness and compassion, not with guns blazing. As such, no one here is bound to listen to you and you would have failed miserably in your mission. Do you think anyone here will leave Catholicism based on your fire and brimstone?

 

[runandsew]

1. **NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DID JESUS GIVE THE APOSTLES AUTHORITY TO ABOLISH SINS!! **Do you know what he gave them authority over? The Devil, demons, sickness, to preach the gospel, cast out demons, to lay hands on the sick, to stand on scorpions etc. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for the abolition of sins. How on earth could a Priest. A person. Born a sinner like you and me. Have the authority to forgive sins? …

Your are right, scripture doesn’t’ say that they were the authority to abolish sins, it says that they were given the authority to forgive sins.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Priests can abolish sins, but they can forgive sins, but it is not them on their own doing this, but Christ doing this through them. They are standing in the place of Jesus, just as the Apostles did in the New Testament times.

Matthew 9:1-8
He entered a boat, made the crossing, and came into his own town. And there people brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Courage, child, your sins are forgiven.” At that, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, “Why do you harbor evil thoughts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” --he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.” He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had** given such authority to human beings**.

John 20:21–23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them (The Apostles) and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

[dcdurel]

This assumes that the Apostles wrote down everything they knew.
Could you write down everything you learned after three years of high school or college? Everything?

Of course not. That is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not teach them new doctrines, but repeated the teachings and in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus to that they had a fuller understanding of what they had already been taught. And the Holy Spirit gave them the power to always remember.

Did Jesus tell the Apostles EVERYTHING as you claim? No.

These are the words of Jesus.
Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

But, not necessarily new teachings, just more future historical accounts of how much He would suffer, for example.

13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."
25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The Holy Spirit would:

1. guide them into all truth (infalliby?)

Guiding is not necessarily revealing new
teachings, but could be guiding them away from what was false and thus only to what is true.

1. tell then what is to come (doctrinal development?)

Not necessarily. The Holy Spirit could tell them what the future would bring. “What is to come” does not necessarily mean new teachings, but new events that would take place.

1. teach them all things (then, obviously, Jesus did not do so)

Not necessarily. Since Jesus already taught them all things, The Holy Spirit would simply be teaching what Jesus taught already, thus bringing to mind what they may have forgotten. I believe the Church teaches the Holy Spirit would also connect the events of Jesus suffering, death and resurrection with the fullness of revelation they already received from Jesus, so that they had a fuller understanding of what had already been revealed.

1. remind them of what Jesus had covered while on earth.
   Sounds like there was a lot more catechesis yet to come.

Yes, but not new teachings.
In other words, when Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, to teach them all things, these “all things” would be what the apostles already learned from Jesus but forgot. But this time the Holy Spirit would remind them and they would not forget. And He would also connect what they had learned with the events of Jesus death and resurrection so that they had a fuller understanding of all the teachings of revelation Jesus gave them.

Thus, there is nothing in those quotes that the Holy Spirit would teach them new doctrines, but only that He would teach them all things. No where does it say new teachings. Up till that time, the apostles had not received the Holy Spirit in a manner where they would not forget. This last time when they received the teachings again, they would not forget.

Again my point is that the apostles did not learn a single new teaching from Scripture. They learned everything from Jesus. And actually you missed a verse in Acts, where Jesus was “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3)
But again, it does not say anything new. Jesus could be connecting what He already taught them with past events, or He could be repeating what He had taught them in the past but they did not fully understand. It was the normal nature of teachers to repeat things over and over. Jesus was teaching by example of His patience with them, how they would have to be patient with others when they taught.

 

[dcdurel]

Now, I will admit that the Church has not explicitly said yet that the apostles did not learn any teaching from scripture, thus that expression is my personal opinion.
But, since the Church does say that Jesus is the fullness of revelation, (not scripture) and since Jesus did say He had made known everything to His apostles, which obviously has to be the teachings regarding salvation, and since the Church does say that the Gospel they were commanded to preach was “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline” and “the fullness of what God has wanted us to know about Himself”, then it is hardly possible for them to learn any new teaching from scripture without making Jesus in error and His Church in error.

Furthermore, the Chuch teaches in the Catechism,
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."1

All that she believes means that all teachings are handed down in Tradition. Thus again, there is no teaching that scripture can add to what the Church has in Tradition. It follows that not a single teaching of what the Catholic Church teaches comes from scripture. God has taught everything to His Church directly.
Now of course, the Church has not made everything explicit. Thus, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there is constantly a deeper penetration into what has been revealed. But, it is not a new revelation, only a deeper penetration into past revelation.

Thus, in light of what Jesus explicitly taught and what the Church teaches, I don’t see anywhere that the Church learned a single teaching from scripture. The Church knew all teachings before a single word of the New testament was written.

I believe we have for too long had a Protestant view of the Gospel, in which we actually think that Church teachings come from scripture. Many Church teachings are found in scripture, but they don’t come from scripture. Too many Catholics actually think the teachings of the Catechism come from the bible. Many are found in the bible, but they don’t come from the bible, they come from the apostles. To many Catholics actually think that Jesus only taught part of the saving truth and that only the bible as a whole gives all the teachings of salvation.

All these ideas are heretical because they deny that Jesus is the fullness of revelation, or they deny that the Gospel the apostles** taught** is the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.

Without the Popes we are constantly misled by error.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

But, the problem is…the gospel implies justification by faith alone. This is clear from scripture. So, if the CC is not teaching this, maybe they need to go back to scripture alone to get this truth down before they branch out and away from it.

Scripture in no way, shape or form teaches justification by faith alone. There is not one verse you can quote in or out of context to support this heretical idea. Justification is by God’s Grace, not by faith alone.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In their opinion, its not the Church making up this stuff, its the father of lies who dupes the Church.

What’s more, these people actually believe that Catholics, even the leadership, don’t have a clue about the bible.

In the light of the original poster’s remarks, that is a not unreasonable assumption. It’s mistaken, but it’s hardly surprising: Catholics do not exactly have a reputation for a great love of the Bible - rather the reverse, if anything. ​

 

[dcdurel]

In the light of the original poster’s remarks, that is a not unreasonable assumption. It’s mistaken, but it’s hardly surprising: Catholics do not exactly have a reputation for a great love of the Bible - rather the reverse, if anything. ​

Yes it is mistaken. The fact is that Catholics have a greater love for Jesus than the bible. We must educated Protestants.

The bible is only part of what God wrote.
Jesus is God himself.
The bible didn’t die for our sins.
Jesus died for our sins.
The bible did not create us.
Jesus created us.
Therefore the Catholic Church starts off with Jesus, not with the bible.

                                        1. **Jesus Christ is the "fullness of all revelation.**"[1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote1sym)

God has said everything in his Word.2
“In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.”3
God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son.4
Jesus Christ “completed and perfected Revelation”5
The fact that Jesus Christ is the fullness of Revelation is the foundation for the “Christocentricity” (92) of catechesis: the mystery of Christ, in the revealed message, is not another element alongside others, it is rather the center from which all other elements are structured and illuminated.6

Scripture is a witness to these teachings of the Church.
“All things have been delivered to me by my Father…” Mt 11:27
In Jesus "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” Col 2:3
In Christ “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9)
1Catechism of the Catholic Church Chap 2. Art 1. Part III
2IBID
3IBID 65
4IBID 73
5General Directory for Catechesis “[Jesus Christ] completed and perfected Revelation, he did this by way of his presence and self manifestation by words and works, signs and miracles, but above all by his death and glorious resurrection from the dead, and finally by sending the Spirit of truth”.
6IBID 41

None of this sits well with Protestants who are taught that the bible is the center of everything and the bible alone is their authority. By making Jesus the fullness of revelation, and Jesus the center of everything, the bible necessarily becomes secondary.

I think part of the problem is that for Catholics, Jesus is greater than the bible. That contradicts everything many Protestants have been taught in a way.

Protestants are taught that the bible alone is their authority. Therefore the bible becomes the center of everything. And then they usually emphasize St. Paul and their interpretation of his teachings on salvation. Thus, they go away from Jesus again. Then they ignore the most explicit teachings of Jesus on obedience and on final judgement.

Thus, the bible as a whole, as interpreted by them, then St. Paul tends to be the center of their religion.

Catholics are taught that Jesus is God, and God revealed everything through Him, thus Jesus is the center of everything.

Thus, from the very beginning their is a conflict.

 

[dcdurel]

We don’t settle the conflict by watering down Jesus in favor of the bible.
The bible is not God.
Jesus IS God.

Thus, we must educate them on which is more important and which is the center, that Jesus is greater than the bible, even though they don’t like it.
The Church knew all** the teachings of revelation **before a single word of the New Testament was written. That kind of makes the foundation of their religion, which is rebellion against the Church using their private interpretation of scripture, crumble.
Then I point out that Jesus said we are saved by believing the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached, since the apostles learned this Gospel directly from Jesus and not from scripture, and St. Paul says the same thing, that salvation comes from believing this Gospel.
** AND the bible does not claim to have a summary of this Gospel anywhere. There is not a single book of the bible, there is not a single chapter of the bible that claims to be a summary of this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached, then that leaves even bigger holes in their religion. **
Then when I point out the historical fact that the apostles spent their lives teaching and preaching this Gospel, and the apostles left successors to continue preaching this Gospel, and the Gospel they taught was the Catholic faith, then that by passes the foundation of their religion entirely.

All they are left with scripture, which is the Word of God in the form of salvation history. It does not claim to be the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. It does not claim to be the fullness of revelation. It does not claim to be the center of everything. It does not even claim to be God. But, it does claim to be salvation history. And that is how I am using it in this post, to
use salvation history, scripture, the Word of God, to point out the center of this salvation history, Jesus, and how He taught us everything. And the Word of God cannot be wrong.

By the way. These same ideas, which I learned entirely from the Popes and what they authorized, can be used to refute the most brilliant dissident Catholic scripture scholars, such as Raymond Brown. Because they always start with the assumption that the Church learned at least some of her doctrines from scripture. That is false. The Church learned ALL here doctrines directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They are all handed down in the Gospel, the “source of all saving truth and moral discipline”
Therefore whatever interpretation they bring up that contradicts the Church teachings can be dismissed because it conflicts with the Gospel that the Church learned from Jesus Christ.

We can use this same fact that the Gospel is the source of all saving truth, to easily refute brilliant dissident theologians.
Because theology is faith seeking understanding.
Faith is believing what God has revealed.
Thus, without revelation, there is no faith, and then theology is empty. There is simply no theology.
Since the Gospel handed down in Tradition is the source of all saving truth, then all theology must be in conformity with this Gospel that the apostles taught and handed down in Tradition. This Gospel that was taught, or Tradition, becomes the body of theology, while scripture is the soul of theology.

Now, for those who are seeking the truth, all this is enlightening. Even for Protestants who don’t care much either way, at least this information shows where Catholicism is coming from. Too many are misinformed by some Catholics who imply Church teachings come from scripture. And the Protestants tend to dismiss Catholicism because they rightly and correctly reason that there is no way all Catholic teachings could come directly from the bible. And they are right. Catholic Church teachings come directly from Jesus Christ. And since they all come from God, then Church teachings will never contradict scripture. Certainly most of these teachings can be found partly in the bible, but they don’t come from the bible. They come from God directly, from His Gospel He taught the Church.

 

[master_catholic]

This writing style and forum handle reminds me of the author of a virulent anti-Everything website whose address I will not post here.

Here’s a tip for this poster. Jesus said that we will recognize his followers by their love. John 13:35 (oh look! Bible verse!).

I see no love or charity here, only hate and anger. I therefore question that you are a follower of Christ.

If you truly desire to lead us poor, misguided, uneducated, hellbound Catholics to salvation, try approaching us with more charity, kindness and compassion, not with guns blazing. As such, no one here is bound to listen to you and you would have failed miserably in your mission. Do you think anyone here will leave Catholicism based on your fire and brimstone?

Nice way of putting it

 

[Rach620]

dcdurel,

I really appreciate your ardent defense for the apostolic Tradition of our Catholic faith. I think that we need more people like you who know that the authority Christ gave to the first apostles to preach the Gospel is one which is inseparable from our faith in Christ’s Church. It is their task to safeguard divine revelation from error.

But I think that in your somewhat overzealous defense of Tradition, you fall into a number of errors. I want to respond to a few of your specific claims, but quoting was getting to be a nightmare with all the long posts. So I’ll just number my responses according to the related topic (in the tradition of Aquinas )

**Divine Revelation and the Relationship of Scripture & Tradition

**As Catholics, we believe that the fullness of divine revelation is found in Christ Himself. Christ Himself, the Word of God Incarnate, who in His saving action of death and resurrection redeemed all of humanity, is the Good News, the Gospel.

Christ personally revealed the Good News of Himself to many people, some of whom, the apostles, he told to go out and preach what they had seen and heard.

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. - *Dei Verbum *7

‘This Gospel’ being spoken of by Vatican II does not refer specifically to “the Gospel the apostles preached” as if it was something distinct from divine revelation AND from Scripture; it is all the same preaching of the same divine revelation, personalized in Christ.

Our Tradition recognizes three phases in the preaching of divine revelation:

1. 
   *]Christ’s life and works (which we know of through the stories found in the NT)
   *]Oral history (the preaching of the apostles)
   *]Written history (recorded by many of the same apostles who preached)
   These all fall in the one preaching of the one divine revelation of salvation in Christ.
   
   Therefore, Scripture and Tradition, which are both ways in which our salvation is communicated by the Holy Spirit (who inspires both the preaching and the writing of the Gospel), are equal in their authority and place of prominence.
   

   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. - CCC 82, citing *Dei Verbum *9

   …continued…

 

[Rach620]

** Neglecting the importance of the Sacred Scriptures**. They are indeed **sacred **to Catholics.

Christ is the Word of God made flesh. Scripture is the Word of God. The Church teaches us that all of Scripture, OT and NT, is the ONE Word of God. So Christ, who was born, suffered, and died for us, in another sense ‘lives’ in a very special way in each and every page of the Bible, the written Word of God.

“Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men.” - *Dei Verbum *13

This is why, as I said earlier, at Mass we respond to the reading of the Gospel with “Glory to you, Lord” and “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.” We are responding not only to the stories of ‘salvation history’ which we have heard, but to the very words being read themselves. We encounter Christ in the Liturgy of the Word in the Church in an incredible way which parallels our encounter with him in the Eucharist.

For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body. - CCC 103

The saints have repeated to us again and again the exceeding importance of the Gospel texts for our understanding of our faith. They are what the Fathers referred to as their ultimate authority in theological disputes, and have been a source of understanding and comfort for millions of other members of the mystical Body of Christ.

There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds. - St. Caesaria the Younger

But above all it’s the Gospels that occupy my mind when I’m at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I’m always finding fresh lights there, hidden and enthralling meanings. - St. Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church

The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’” - CCC 133

Misunderstanding theology.
Also, theology, while it is ‘faith seeking understanding’ as St. Anselm so eloquently defined it, began its life as an academic discipline when monks and priests sought to become ‘masters of the sacred page’ in the earliest medieval ‘universities’. To be a theologian is to be a master of Scripture, because Scripture is the Word of God Himself, Christ speaking to us from all eternity. We know that what it contains is the Truth, and that God has provided for us innumerable ways in the study of Scripture for us to come to a greater understanding of our faith.

“Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.” - *Dei Verbum *24

Here is the ultimate Catholic understanding of the place of Scripture and Tradition:

Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living."73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.” - CCC 108

 

[dcdurel]

But I think that in your somewhat overzealous defense of Tradition, you fall into a number of errors. I want to respond to a few of your specific claims, but quoting was getting to be a nightmare with all the long posts. So I’ll just number my responses according to the related topic (in the tradition of Aquinas )

First. I am glad you are trying to help me clarify things, because I am not getting this information from some scholar who is quoting Church teaching, ( I can’t find anyone who explains all this) but I am going directly to Church teachings and the Popes teachings themselves.
Thus, I certainly am open to any help you or anyone else can give.

**Divine Revelation and the Relationship of Scripture & Tradition
**“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.” - *Dei Verbum *7

‘This Gospel’ being spoken of by Vatican II does not refer specifically to “the Gospel the apostles preached” as if it was something distinct from divine revelation AND from Scripture; it is all the same preaching of the same divine revelation, personalized in Christ.

Vatican II and the Catechism do refer specifically to the Gospel the apostles preached. It says, “In preaching the Gospel, they were to commuicate the gifts of God to all men.” It does not say “in writing the Gospels”. The part that was written came later. Let me quote the entire passage directly from the Catechism.

1. “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.”

Notice the words, “This Gospel”, refering to the previous two sentences in which the Gospel is only referred to the one that was “preached”.
I did not mean to give the impression that the Gospel they preached was distinct from divine revelation. Since it came directly from Jesus, I thought it was understood that it IS divine revelation. Tradition and Scripture are both part of divine revelation.

Now, maybe you mean to say that the Old Testament scriptures, which are part of divine revelation are part of the Gospel. Perhaps so, since they forshadow the Jesus and His Gospel. But, what the apostles learned from Jesus was far more extensive and complete than the little they knew before, through their Jewish religion. Thus, we can say the apostles learned the full Gospel only from Jesus, and not from scripture. For example, after all, though they knew God created the world, it was not from the scripture they learned this, but from their religion first, who told them that truth and them told them what was scripture and where that truth was found in scripture. But, this teachings was realized only fully when Jesus came and taught the apostles.

Our Tradition recognizes three phases in the preaching of divine revelation:

1. 
   *]Christ’s life and works (which we know of through the stories found in the NT)
   *]Oral history (the preaching of the apostles)
   *]Written history (recorded by many of the same apostles who preached)
   These all fall in the one preaching of the one divine revelation of salvation in Christ.

1. 
   If I am not mistaken, these three stages don’t refer to the preaching of the Gospel, but they refer to the three stages of formation of the written Gospels
   This is in the Catechism in paragraph 126
   126. “We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:”
   “1. The life and teaching of Jesus”
   “2. The oral tradition.”
   “3. The written Gospels.”
   
   These written Gospels came later, and they are scripture and distinct from the Gospel handed down in Tradition, though closely connected to it. Both form one Gospel. But, it is clear as I quoted earlier, that the Gospel the apostles preached was the “source of all saving truth” and everything the Church believes is handed down in Tradition, and that Tradition came before the written Gospels.

 

[dcdurel]

Let me quote from the Catechism again,
" “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.” 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.” 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."1

There are three basic parts to this paragraph.

1. 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.
2. This living trasmission ( of the full and living Gospel) is called Tradition.
3. Through Tradition the Church transmitts “all that she believes”.
   Notice the words, “the full and living Gospel”. Thus, this Gospel is missing nothing in regards to teachings. And through Tradition, NOT scripture, the Church transmitts “all that she believes”. Thus no new teachings can be added to it, even by scripture.
   

   Can new revelation that is not teaching be added? Of course. The four written Gospels contain lots of new revelation that are not teachings. For example, they contain the examples of what Jesus did. The contain examples of how Jesus acted with others, how He responded, His expressions, if He shouted or if He was calm. In this manner we can learn about Jesus personally.

“Not to know scripture is not to know Christ”.
They contain detailed historical events. That is their purpose. They are narratives of the life of Jesus.
But can scripture add new teachings? No. Otherwise Jesus was wrong when he told the apostles several times
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
If Jesus taught them all things, and the Holy Spirit repeated these teachings and gave the the power to remember them, then there is no new teaching scripture can add.
And if scripture can add teachings to what has been revealed in Tradition then the Church is wrong when she says that through Tradition the full and living Gospel is handed down with “all she believes” .**

Again, this is not a new idea. Yves Congar, in his books on Tradition says scholars have always admitted that there is not a single teaching of scripture that was not already present in Tradition. **

I am not teaching anything new. I am simply making it more explicit, more authoritative by quoting what the Church teaches and more understandable by using scripture to illuminate this teaching.
I am doing this for several reasons. To make it clear exactly what the Church means when she says the primary duty of priests and bishops is the “proclamation of the Gospel”, it is to profess the whole Catholic faith, especially the initial proclamation. And to finally to clear up the error that Church teachings come from scripture. They don’t. Many are found in scripture. Many are are handed down in scripture, **after the Church learned them through Tradition, **
and the Church quotes scripture as a “witness” to these teachings. But they all come directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit who taught them again.

 

[dcdurel]

"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”. - CCC 82, citing *Dei Verbum *9

I never denied that they must both be honored with equal sentifments of devotion. After all God’s word in salvation history and God’s word in Traditon is all God’s word.
And notice the Church does not claim to learn revealed truths from scripture, but claims to derive her “certainty” about revealed truths from scripture.

There is a difference between learning revealed truths from scripture and deriving her certainty ABOUT revealed truths from scripture.

For example. The doctrine of the Trinity was not known until Jesus taught it to the apostles. This doctrine was thus learned directly from Jesus, and handed down in Tradition. Now, we can go back to the Old Testament and derive certainty about this doctrine from various parts of the Old Testament scriptures, such as let “us” create, etc, and even from the NT scriptures of course.

But, the Church did not learn the doctrine of the Trinity from scripture. The Church learned from Jesus who handed it down in Tradition through the apostles in the Gospel they preached and taught.
Thus, we can go back and derive the certainty of many teachings of the Gospel, such as teachings about Mary, from the Old Testament. But, the Church did not learn these teachings until Jesus revealed them in the Gospel.

All I said is what the Church, the bible, and scholar have always taught and that is that all Church teachings come from Tradition, through the Gospel the apostles learned from Jesus.
Scripture adds no teaching to what the Church learned through Tradition. Get Yves Congar’s book on Tradition, (and he is recognized as the authority on Tradition)
if you don’t believe this was the belief of Catholic scholars.

 

[dcdurel]

** Neglecting the importance of the Sacred Scriptures**. They are indeed **sacred **to Catholics.

Christ is the Word of God made flesh. Scripture is the Word of God. The Church teaches us that all of Scripture, OT and NT, is the ONE Word of God. So Christ, who was born, suffered, and died for us, in another sense ‘lives’ in a very special way in each and every page of the Bible, the written Word of God.

I never denied any of this.
I am focusing on teachings, teachings of the Gospel, which are the word of God. I never denied that scripture is the Word of God or in the least made scripture less than Tradition. But in my posts I am focusing on the teachings of salvation, not salvation history.
All I am trying to do is clear up error. In this country almost everyone has a Protestant idea of the word Gospel.
Thus, when we hear “proclaim the Gospel”, everyone thinks this means to teach the four Gospels, or to teach and proclaim only what is written in these Gospels, interpreted according to Tradition.
The Church means something entirely different.
Basically the Church means we proclaim the Gospel by the

1. By example of a holy life,
2. and by words.

We all know what by example means. The problem is teaching by using words.

To teach by words the Church divides the proclamation of the Gospel into two sections,

1. The initial proclamation
2. Catechesis.

The initial proclamation.
To summarize very briefly, it is to teach that in Jesus God has loved everyone and sent His Son Jesus to liberate us from everything that oppresses us, especially from sin and satan, so that we can be happy and in union with God in this life and in the next life. This teaching that out of love Jesus came to free us from the slavery of sin is the center and kernel of the whole Gospel. Everything else relates to that definition of salvation.

Catechesis
To teach the whole Catholic faith.
Catechism definition:
5. “Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life.”

Catechesis is done by teaching the Trinity, then salvation history, (for this we use scripture) then the articles of the creed, commandments, sacraments, and prayer, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life.
In other words, to make them practicing Catholics.

Notice that no where in these two basic sections does the Church make reading and explaining the four Gospels the primary way to proclaim the Gospel.
For the Church, proclaiming the Gospel means to proclaim the Catholic faith.
Why?
Because that is how the apostles did it.
If all four Gospels had already been written, and the apostles John was out preaching the Gospel and some pagan came up and said, ’
“tell me about this Jesus who you are proclaiming”

Would John start by reading the Gospels then, explain them?

Would John start by quoting the geneologies in Matthew?
Would he start by quoting his own Gospel, "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, …then explain those words?

He would not get very far. What would he quote to explain the Trinity? What bible verses teach the Trinity?
The pagan would ask, “who is God”. Would John respond by quoting more of scripture?

Of course not. After the initial proclamation, if the pagan was still interested, John would have to teach the Trinity. Then salvation history, (for this he would use the scriptures) Then the articles of the creed, the sacraments,(through which we receive the grace that saves us) the commandments and prayer.

John could never teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ by reading the Gospels, then giving an explanation of them.

John and the apostles proclaimed the Gospel, taught the Gospel, preached the Gospel by first giving the initial proclaimation, then by catechizing, that is, teaching the whole CATHOLIC FAITH, by explaining the Trinity, salvation history, the creed, sacraments and prayer with the view of teaching the people how to be practicing Catholics.
That is why their successors were Catholic bishops. That is why the apostolic Fathers and the first Christians were all Catholic. The Gospel they learned from the apostles was the CATHOLIC FAITH. This Catholic faith does NOT come from scripture, but from the apostles, who learned it from Jesus Christ. Not a single teaching of the Catholic faith comes from scripture.

 

[dcdurel]

Misunderstanding theology.
Also, theology, while it is ‘faith seeking understanding’ as St. Anselm so eloquently defined it, began its life as an academic discipline when monks and priests sought to become ‘masters of the sacred page’ in the earliest medieval ‘universities’. To be a theologian is to be a master of Scripture, because Scripture is the Word of God

Why do you leave out Tradition. Tradition is the Word of God that Jesus taught and preached. Tradition is the Word of God that the apostles handed down in the Gospel which they preached.

To be a master of the sacred page, one first has to know what the sacred page means. That can only come through being taught by Tradition. After all, we have brilliant, holy, Protestant theologians who are masters of the sacred page, who know the bible far better than me, who even have it memorized, who know the Greek, etc.
Yet they have no idea what Jesus meant when He said,
“This is My body.”
There is no theology without Tradition. For it is only through Tradition that we can learn the Gospel. And the Gospel is the “source of all saving truth and moral discipline” because it comes directly from Jesus Christ, the savior of the world and the fullness of revelation.

Thus, the rule of faith is scripture and Tradition. Without Tradition there can be no theology. Theology is faith seeking understanding. Faith does NOT come from reading scripture, but from believing the Gospel that was preached and taught. Faith comes from hearing the Word of God that the apostles handed down in the Gospel. And the Word of God they taught was the Catholic faith.

If the Word of God they taught was generic Protestantism, then all the early Christians would have been Protestant.
They weren’t. They were all Catholic.

Does this make sense. Do you realize that the Gospel the apostles taught and preached was the Catholic faith?

Or do you actually believe they first taught the Gospel by reading the four Gospels then give an exegesis of them?

 

[Zahmir]

Not a single teaching of the Catholic faith comes from scripture.

Dcdurel,

You just need to be careful with your language, most importantly. If a Protestant were to read this, they would think Catholics don’t value the Bible or that in a Church Council, they simply talk about things abstractly without verifying it in Scripture.

Whenever there was a threat of heresy in the Catholic Church (I have nestorius in mind) the Bishops always turned to Scripture to see what is written. Everything they proclaimed to be true WAS on the basis of Scripture. It sounds to me in your view that a bunch of bishops were sitting around one day and were like “Oh yeah, hypostatic union… I remember when Christ told me that.”

While the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit – thereby making Tradition a source of revelation – it is in Scripture that the Church turns to for Truth about the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church can not hold something that isn’t verified by Scripture. The Trinity, although not explicitly in Scripture, is verified and defended on the basis of Scripture.

I think too, Dcdurel, it’s important to note that while God worked through the Apostles in the formation of Scripture, it is God who is the ultimate author. We must not think that the Bible is simply a collection of human writings, but truly is the Word of God. When it comes to the New Testament, this is true as well. For, while the enlightened Apostles were trying to preach to specific communities in the four Gospels or in their letters and did so on the authority which God gave them (they themselves possessed a certain knowledge), God is still the ultimate author. I think even the human authors, the Apostles themselves, didn’t realize the full extent of what they were saying and didn’t realize the full implication of their writings.

Anyway, the point is: we can’t underestimate the value of Scripture. It is revelation, but we need God’s authority to correctly interpret the Bible. Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Eliza10]

What you wrote is an interesting point and well thought out. I never thought of it that way, but I don’t see anything wrong with it. I think its true. You are concluding, in a way, that the gospel is the Catholic faith, since it came to us from the Apostles. I think you are right.

And also you are right on this:

I don’t think that everything taught by the apostles and the Church is supported by scripture. First, the Church never teaches such a thing.
That is a Protestant idea. …

Second there are clear teachings in Tradition that cannot be found in scripture. …

Of course, since God is the author of both, then Church teachings which have come from Jesus, through the apostles, will never contradict scripture, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

How can you say Scripture is not the source of Church teachings when the Catechism says in para 107:

The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” (From Dei Verbum)

Here the Church explicitly says that Scripture teaches salvific truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

These are the words of Jesus.

Mr 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
He privately explained everything that he had taught publicly. Read that passage in context.

John 15:15 “for everything

that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”Here you are taking a literalist approach rather than a literal approach, IMO. You could be right, I suppose, but I’m not convinced that Jesus told his disciples everything that He had discussed with the Father in his private prayer. Who knows?

John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things

, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

This seems like a pretty strong argument for the existence of the Magisterium and infallibility, in my view.