Scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings

[dcdurel]

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.

 The problem is that Protestants value the bible for the wrong reasons.  They think of the bible as a catechism, that teaches doctrine.  This is wrong.  Jesus never said that we can learn the Gospel He taught by reading the bible, or by studing scripture.   That is the reason there are over 30,000 different Protestant denominations, which all cannot agree on a single teaching of the bible.  Scott Hahn said they can't even agree on a single interpretation of any verse of the bible.  The reason they can't agree is  because the bible was not inspired to teach doctrine by itself, it was inspired to give us salvation history and to nourish, illuminate and be a witness to doctrine.

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.”

NO it was NOT on the basis of scripture. The bishops already knew the teachings that were handed down. They used scripture as a “witness” to the teaching they already knew, and to “illuminate” the teachings they already knew.

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.

Absolutely false. First, there is NO such teaching. There is no such teaching that “Catholic Church can not hold something that isn’t verified by Scripture.” Where do you get these far out ideas? Certainly not from the Catholic Church.
Second, the Church was teaching the full Gospel before a single book of the NT was written. The Church did not say, “lets wait till scripture is written before we hold any teaching.” Pure nonsense.
Second, there are lots of teachings in Tradition found no where in Scripture, such as the canon or list of books which are inspired. There is no such list in scripture.
Another example is the teaching that when the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus, that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that this change is effected.
There is no place in scripture that says it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. Yet this teaching has always been handed down in Tradition. The Church Fathers taught it and it is in the prayers of the mass today.

The Trinity, although not explicitly in Scripture, is verified and defended on the basis of Scripture.

Scripture is not needed to defend the Trinity. There is no teaching of the Catholic Church that requires scripture to verify a teaching. The faithful did not have to wait for scripture to be written before they could believe the teachings on the Trinity. The teaching about the Trinity is nourished by scripture, it is illuminated by scripture and scripture is a witness to the teaching of the Trinity. Thus, scripture is very useful when teaching or defending the Trinity. But the teaching on the Trinity DID NOT COME FROM SCRIPTURE.
Like all God’s teachings, it came to us from Jesus, through the Gospel that apostles taught and preached.

 

[dcdurel]

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.

When did I deny that?
What does that have to do with my main point, which is that not a single teaching of the Catholic Church came from scripture?

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.

Of course they knew the full extent of what they were saying.
“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)
Notice it is NOT in the writers of scripture that “are his all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”, is NOT in St. Paul that “the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily”
but ONLY in Jesus Christ. And Jesus taught the apostles everything that He learned from His Father,
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
There is no teaching of the Church that the apostles had to wait until Paul wrote, or James wrote, or the four Gospels were written until they knew the full extent of what they were saying. Remember, they learned directly from God Himself, and were taught again by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom. They did not have to wait till God spoke through men to learn the fullness of revelation. The apostles learned directly from God. Jesus is the fullness of revelation, not the writers of scripture. The Holy Spirit taught the apostles directly. The Holy Spirit is God. The writers of scripture are not God. We cannot make men greater than God.
And the Church teaches that the Gospel the apostles preached and taught contained “the fullness of the truth which God has enabled us to know about himself” Redemtoris Missio
And it is “the source of all saving truth…” No where does the Church teach that scripture is the source of all saving truth. Scripture is salvation history and the Gospels are the narratives of the life of Jesus and only contain “certain elements” of Tradition.

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.

Who denies that?
All I am pointing out is the the teachings of the Church do not come from Scripture. They come directly from Jesus who had made known everthing to the Church.
That is why we always interpret scripture according to Tradition. Tradition is the teachings of salvation, the ways of worship, and all the Church believes, that Jesus taught His Church directly, the Church hands these down as the teachings of the Catholic faith. Scripture is salvation history. Thus, our interpretation of salvation history must be in conformity with “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”, which is the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, the Catholic faith.

 

[dcdurel]

He privately explained everything that he had taught publicly. Read that passage in context.

John 15:15, He also said,“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?

I certainly don’t understand this in the pure literal sense, of everything God knows, but in the sense that in regarding the truths of salvation that God wanted us to know, Jesus taught the apostles everything.
The apostles handed down this revelation in the Gospel they preached, which the Pope emphatically taught contains “the fullness of the truth which God has enabled us to know about himself" and the Catechism calls “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”.
Thus, I understand that when Jesus taught the apostles everything, it is in the same sense that the Church describes the Gospel that they preached.

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.

Absolutely. But, notice Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit would teach new things. Until the Holy Spirit was sent, the apostles did not have the power to remember everything, thus the Holy Spirit would have to teach what Jesus taught again.
The Gospel the apostles handed down in Tradition is called by the Church “the full and living Gospel,” in the sense that it is not static and dead but it is to be applied to all times, and in all cultures. The Holy Spirit continually guides the Popes when they teach this Gospel, the Catholic faith, in different times and situations.

 

[dcdurel]

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.

It does not say “salvific truth”, but, that truth which God, “for the sake of our salvation” which to see confided to Sacred Scriptures.
Salvific truth implies truths that are necessary for salvation. There are truths which are not necessary for our salvation, for example, that Solomon had 700 wives.
It is not necessary for our salvation, it is not “saving truth”, to know that Solomon had 700 wives.
But God did want that truth to be known in Sacred Scripture as something useful for our salvation, thus it is for the sake of our Salvation. Everything in scripture is for the sake of our salvation, othewise He would not have inspired it. Who else was scripture written for? But, not everything in scripture is necessary for our salvation, or saving truth.
God inspired scripture to tell us that Paul sailed for Tarsus. God did this for a reason, for the sake of our salvation, that is it is useful for our salvation. Otherwise He would not have inspired it to be written. But, it is not a Church teaching, it is not a “saving truth”, it is not something necessary for our salvation. It is only useful.

Now, the scriptures also teach saving truth, teachings of the Gospel, mostly implicitly and not explicitly. But again, these teachings don’t come from scripture first, but from the apostles, who learned from Jesus and all were handed down in Tradition.

In my posts I have used the sense that scripture is not the original source of Church teachings or in the sense that the Church did not first learn any saving truth from Scripture.
By the time the New Testament was written, the Church already knew all her teachings. **There is no teaching of salvation that the Church learned from scripture. **
In that sense, scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings.
The Church learned all teachings of salvation directly from Jesus and all these teachings were handed down in Tradition, in their fullness, before a single one of these teachings was repeated in the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament. And again, the Church teaches only "certain elements" of this Tradition were written in the Gospels. And as anyone who does apologetics knows, these elements that were written are not perfectly explicit, clear and full in their presentation. It is only in the Gospel handed down in Tradition that we have the fullness of what God wanted to reveal about Himself.

 

[Zahmir]

Dcdurel,

How exactly would this manifest itself?

Like I said, were a bunch of bishops sitting around in Convocation and were like “I remember that now.”?

At the very least, we must acknowledge that Scripture holds doctrine, for the instruction of the faithful and as a defense against heretics. We CAN turn to Scripture and, as evidence of this, many arguments within the Church and against the Church were had on the basis of Scripture. This is a fact.

Of course, it always came down to the Bishops who settled on the correct interpretation of Scripture. Thus, the importance of Tradition.

But you are right, the authority of Tradition isn’t limited to Scripture and the Church has the right to declare things which may or may not be found in Scripture.

But even the Marian Doctrines, which all the Bible-loving Protestants absolutely hate, are held on the basis of Scripture. There is more to Scripture than first meets the eye, but fortunately for us Catholics, we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit working in the Church at large, led by our Bishops, which shows us the correct way of understanding Scripture.

I promise you Dcdurel, more can be learned by reading Scripture through the guidance of the magisterium than by reading the Catechism. We must all read Scripture, and find Jesus Christ speaking to us there. And yes, Christ Himself is speaking in Scripture… I would not say that His teachings are… imperfect.

 

[guanophore]

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.

The writings accurately reflect the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, which was delivered verbally and by oral tradition.
That source of truth is Jesus, who speaks to His church still today through the Holy Spirit.

 

[jmcrae]

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)

Not all by themselves, they don’t. The Church is the proper interpreter of the Scriptures.

Here the Church explicitly says that Scripture teaches salvific truth.

The Scriptures assist in teaching salvific truth to modern day people - not to the Church. The Church learned it from Jesus Christ. It is the Church who gathered the Scriptures together into one place, and defined what they are, and the Church uses the Scriptures together with Holy Tradition in aid of teaching us what Christ taught to the Church, by means of the protection of the Holy Spirit both of the transmission of the Scriptures and of the transmission of Holy Tradition, which comes down to us through the Magesterium of the Church.

 

[Rach620]

Dcdurel,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this thread. I’ve been reading along, but haven’t had the time to respond (finals!).

I really think that the root of your problem here is that you are not being specific or particular enough in articulating your position. The role of divine revelation in our faith is an important one that we don’t want to mess up our interpretation of. Again—you consistently seem to be selling the Bible short.

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.

Just as we are to interpret Scripture with the guidance of Tradition, there are greater authorities than ourselves when it comes to interpreting the teaching of the Church. Theologians have studied these things for years, and while we should always be critical of things which seem unorthodox (especially these days!), if your same thesis has never before been argued by a theologian in the past, I’d say that it’s telling.

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

That passage does not *exclude *the written Gospel from the same ‘good news’ preached by the Apostles. We can assume that because they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men in their preaching, when their task of preaching the good news to all men came to include writing it down at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they communicated the *same *gifts in their writing.

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”, referring to the previous two sentences in which the Gospel is only referred to the one that was “preached”.

If you read closely, ‘this Gospel’ refers to the one “which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips”. ‘This Gospel’ is *in no way *limited to that which the apostles preached. ‘This Gospel’ is the divine revelation of Christ Himself, revealed in His person to the Apostles in a very special way, and revealed by the Holy Spirit which He sent after Himself to guide their writing of His revelation.

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.

In your vehemence you certainly give that impression.

I am not trying to argue that the apostles ‘learned’ what they taught from the New Testament Scriptures/Gospels. What they preached was the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures in the person of Christ, the Incarnate Word.
Where the problem comes in is ignoring the fact that *we* and our bishops who are the successors of those apostles have learned 'the Gospel the apostles preached' *from the written record which they left in the Gospels*! Our Catechism, our Church’s teachings and authority, *do *find their origin in Scripture, which is the written Word of God and the legacy of the apostles’ earliest preaching and teaching. This is why we need the Tradition of the Church to properly interpret it. The apostles handed on their preaching role and the Scriptures to their successors—two strands of the divine revelation bestowed on them by Christ which cannot be separated or denigrated.

 

[Rach620]

…continued

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.

The Scripture *grew out of *Tradition! It’s all the same Truth, all the same divine revelation, just communicated in different ways (orally and written).

‘The source of all saving truth’ is divine revelation itself—something which no human being can possibly understand in this life. That’s what heaven is for, when our capacity for understanding it all will be made possible by God Himself. Of course the Bible says that Christ ‘revealed EVERYTHING’ to His apostles. EVERYTHING was revealed in His very person. You can’t be in the presence of Christ and not have ‘everything revealed’ to you… Christ, the Word of God incarnate, IS divine revelation.

The ‘Gospel the apostles preached’ was their communication of that divine revelation, made possible through the power of the Holy Spirit. They communicated divine revelation not only in their spoken words and oral preaching, but later in that which they wrote down. The two methods of transmission are equal in honor and dignity. This is the teaching of the Church.

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.” – *Dei Verbum *9

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

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.

You missed this key portion:

“…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…”

Scripture is a key part of our Tradition. It is where the apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded the very same divine revelation which they have been preaching. Because of this very special role, it is viewed as the highest of authorities (along with the Tradition out of which it grew) when it comes to our faith. Referring to Scripture is how the successors to the apostles ensure that they are truly preaching God’s Word in all that they do.
.

 

[Rach620]

…continued

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 they are so much more than just narratives! The words of Scripture are sacred—they are the ‘breath of God,’ His voice speaking to us through the ages and through our Church. It is such an unfathomable mystery, but the very Word of God Himself, just as He was made flesh to be like us, is united to us in our capacity for reason and in the very language of the biblical text. He is the spoken and eternally speaking Word of God, and He speaks through the Scriptures.

This is why they are so important to us, why they merit such a place of reverence in the Mass. The priest does not kiss the book of the Gospels at Mass because he’s thinking “oh, God, we’re so thankful to hear about what Jesus did.” He’s doing it because he is recognizing that right there in that book, the Word of God—who is Christ—is present.

I’ve posted this quote before, but I think it’s fantastic:

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 102, quoting *Dei Verbum *21

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” .

I never claimed that Scripture ‘adds new teachings’. I am arguing that Scripture and Tradition reveal the same divine truth, that one is not above the other in importance, and that theologians rightly use Scripture, interpreted in the Tradition of the Church, to settle theological disputes (and have been doing so for centuries).

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.

But you are. There is a big difference between “Scripture does not teach/add anything to Tradition because it is one and the same divine revelation,” and “Scripture is only important as offering examples from the narrative history of Jesus’ life when it comes to divine revelation.”

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.

Because the fullness of Truth is found in the Catholic faith, I’ll give you this one. But be careful; the proclamation of the Gospel is 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]

…continued

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.

They were recorded in Scripture after the Church learned them through Christ Himself. Christ instituted the apostolic preaching, and at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit those same apostles proclaimed the Gospel and recorded it. Through their pens, the Word of God spoke, just as through Christ’s body the Word of God was active in the world.

The Church quotes Scripture as an authority because we can be certain that there we find the infallible Word of God Himself, something which we must always aspire to in our teachings. The successors of the apostles must strive to be, like the Scriptures, free from error. The only way that we can ensure that they are is by comparing their preaching with correctly interpreted (ie, in the Tradition of the faith) Scripture. Theologians have been doing this for centuries—you prove a heretic wrong by bombarding him with Scripture, and demonstrating that his reading of it is an incorrect one.

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.

Again, you give the impression of making Scripture less than Tradition.

And in fact, by repeatedly claiming that the Gospel is only for ‘the teaching of salvation history,’ you do seem to be putting the Scripture below Tradition (where we can find teaching on salvation, I guess?). Because it is the very Word of God, the written Gospel reveals the mystery of our salvation. There are two senses to Scripture, the literal and the spiritual. Even in the ways in which the various events of ‘salvation history’ take place can we discern the meaning of the deep mystery of our salvation.

 

[Rach620]

…continued

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.

  *Only *what is written? The mystery of our salvation is written there; we can only begin to understand it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our 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.

  Yes, yes, “Preach the gospel; and when necessary, use words.” – St. Francis of Assisi. This applies to human action, but definitely does not apply to divine revelation in Scripture and Tradition, so your post about catechesis really doesn’t seem to be relevant to this discussion…

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.

  There is a **big difference **between our catechizing others to spread the Faith and God’s speaking to us through oral and written divine revelation. The latter is the subject of our current debate.

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

  We are told that the earliest apostles spread the faith by their community of prayer.

Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Fathers/successors to the apostles, taught the faith by explaining the liturgy. I think that’s a pretty good start, especially since the proclamation of the Gospel is part of the Mass. I’d bet John would approve…

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.

  I’m really not sure how they were able to do that, given that the doctrine of the Trinity had not been fully articulated (even Justin Martyr, mentioned above, talked about the ‘degree’ of divinity of Christ, as if He were not eternally begotten of the Father, and that there was no creed to speak of for at least a couple of centuries.

I’m not saying that these things are not part of the faith we have inherited from the apostles—they are most definitely, and are certainly found in Scripture—but that rather they did not have as keen of an understanding of the matters as we have developed today. I think of the early Church as more of being so blown away by the reality of the Christ they had just seen and lived with that they hadn’t quite gotten to describing Him as best they could just yet.

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.

  They’re all *considered *Catholic, but I doubt they called themselves that ;). They were all just Christians; no divisions in the Body of Christ yet to speak of…

  The Catholic (Christian) faith comes from CHRIST, who is Himself divine revelation. Our teachings come from Scripture and Tradition, which are the means by which we encounter that divine revelation.

 

[jmcrae]

They’re all *considered *Catholic, but I doubt they called themselves that . They were all just Christians; no divisions in the Body of Christ yet to speak of…

The word “Catholic” began to be used in writing in about 110 AD, by St. Ignatius of Antioch, and he uses it without defining it, which suggests that it was a commonly used term for the Church already.

He uses it to differentiate Christ’s Church from various heretical groups that were already springing up, and he emphasizes that Christ’s Church is to be found with the Successors of the Apostles (the Bishops), and nowhere else.

The Catholic (Christian) faith comes from CHRIST, who is Himself divine revelation. Our teachings come from Scripture and Tradition, which are the means by which we encounter that divine revelation.

Absolutely.

 

[Rach620]

Last one for awhile…

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.

I left out Tradition because it is assumed to play an integral role, here. But I also wanted to emphasize that the sacred page itself is worthy of study. It is the written Word of God. It deserves all due reverence—and that includes interpreting it correctly…with 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.

You’re correct, dcdurel. These Protestant ‘theologians’ aren’t actually masters of the sacred page, though, in the meaning I was attributing to it. They’re pretenders, certainly, but the understanding that Tradition is essential is lacking, and that very lesson finds its origin in Scripture. If you don’t understand the need for Tradition, you simply can’t be a master of Scripture.

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?

I never claimed that John preached by reading the Gospels. That was historically impossible. But the successors to those apostolic authors *did. *And that is what we are to do.

 

[dcdurel]

Dcdurel,
How exactly would this manifest itself?
Like I said, were a bunch of bishops sitting around in Convocation and were like “I remember that now.”?

How do you thinkt the apostles taught the Gospel?

If some pagan came up to the apostle John, after all four Gospels had been written and said, “tell me about this Jesus.”
Do you actually think John would start off by reading the Gospels? Would John start off by reading:

" The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brothers; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;"

Of course not.

Or do you think John would start off by reading:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. "

Of course not.

The pagan would ask, "who is God?

Would John start reading some more scripture to try to teach who God is?

Of course not.

How would John explain the Trinity by reading scripture.
What Chapter of the bible explains the Trinity?

There is none.

I don’t know where Christians got this crazy idea that the proclamation of the Gospel is done by reading the bible, then by giving an explanation of that reading.
The teachings of the Catholic Church did NOT originate from the bible.

Jesus taught the apostles the Gospel, the good news, and since the Gospel came from directly from Jesus, “the fullness of revelation” in whom @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } → "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” Col 2:3

Thus, this Gospel THAT THE APOSTLES PREACHED is the “SOURCE OF ALL SAVING TRUTH.”

The bible is NOT the source of all saving truth. There is no way John could explain who God is, who the Trinity is, by reading the bible and then explaining the bible.

John had to teach who God is, the same way we learned through the catechisms, in a organic and systematic way.

John would then have to teach the initial proclamation of the Gospel, (see Evangeli Nuntiandi, and Mission of the Redeemer) which simplified is that out of love for us God sent His son to liberate us from everything that oppresses us, esp. to free us from the slavery of sin, by His death and resurrection, so that we could be in union with Him in this life and in the next.

John would have to TEACH the Trinity. If you read in the New Testament, the apostles spent most of their time TEACHING the Gospel, the Catholic faith, not reading the Gospels to people.

Then John would go through all the articles of the Creed and teach them. Then He would teach the sacraments and explain them. After all, it is through the sacraments that we receive the grace that saves us, that frees us from our sins. Then He would teach the commandments, “if you wish to enter life, keep the commandments”.
And He would teach them as Jesus expanded upon them, as Jesus taught the apostles, NOT only as they read in the OT. And John would teach how to pray, as Jesus taught the apostles. John would teach how to worship. The bible does NOT give a worship service plan. Jesus and the Holy Spirit TAUGHT the apostles the prayers of the mass.
John and the apostles appointed their successors. It is only a historical fact. These successors were all bishops of the Catholic Church. How did they learn to become bishops? The apostles taught them!
Well the primary duty of bishops is to proclaim the Gospel, the same Gospel the apostles taught, which is the Catholic faith. They did it the same way. They taught the articles of the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer.
The apostles , and their successors the Bishops of the Catholic Church, DID NOT read the four gospels and explain them as their primary way of proclaiming the Gospel. One cannot teach the Gospel, the Catholic faith, by reading scripture and explaining it. That would result in ignorant Catholics, just like we have today, and the Church could never have grown. One has to teach in an organic and systematic way. Catechize.
Thus the bishops did not have to say, “I remember now…” The bishops were constantly teaching, constantly administering the sacraments, just as Jesus and the apostles were constantly teaching. Jesus taught every day as the bible says. See Catechesi Tradendae by JpII to understand how much Jesus and the apostles taught.

 

[Rach620]

Thus, this Gospel THAT THE APOSTLES PREACHED is the “SOURCE OF ALL SAVING TRUTH.”

This is not correct.

The source of all saving truth is **Christ Himself. **

In Him, the Incarnate Word (the same one who speaks directly to us in the Scriptures) revealed the glory of God in a very personal way.

**Christ **is the only source of all saving truth. Scripture and Tradition exist and have meaning only in reference to Christ as saving truth itself.

dcdurel, do you realize what a dangerous assertion you are making here? You are limiting the meaning of the gospel–the good news of our salvation–to that specifically which the apostles preached.

The Bible is not the source of *all *saving truth, but neither is Tradition. The source of *all *saving truth is God, and this saving truth has been specially revealed to mankind in the person of His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.

John had to teach who God is, the same way we learned through the catechisms, in a organic and systematic way.

John would then have to teach the initial proclamation of the Gospel, (see Evangeli Nuntiandi, and Mission of the Redeemer) which simplified is that out of love for us God sent His son to liberate us from everything that oppresses us, esp. to free us from the slavery of sin, by His death and resurrection, so that we could be in union with Him in this life and in the next.

I believe this ‘initial proclamation of the Gospel’ is summed up quite nicely in John’s own Gospel:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”

Why would this explanation of the faith not be sufficient as a starting point? And why would we believe that, as these are the words of God, John would prefer his own, lengthier explanation to their ‘initial proclamation’?

Then John would go through all the articles of the Creed and teach them.

What creed?

Creeds did not exist at the time of the apostolic preaching; they only were implemented for use in the liturgy in the 5th century. There were no articles of the creed because there had not yet been a chance to articulate the theological understanding of all that had been revealed to them…that only happened later, by the Fathers who succeeded the apostles, and those creeds were strongly rooted in the orthodox interpretation of Scripture.

These successors were all bishops of the Catholic Church. How did they learn to become bishops? The apostles taught them!
Well the primary duty of bishops is to proclaim the Gospel, the same Gospel the apostles taught, which is the Catholic faith. They did it the same way. They taught the articles of the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer.

It’s a bit anachronistic to expect that today’s catechesis (or even the catechesis of 1000 or 1500 years ago) was largely identical to that of the original apostles. The method of preaching is not the important content of what is inherited from those apostles by the bishops who succeed them.

It’s also just innacurate to expect it to be so. There WAS NO CREED when the apostles were preaching. Yes, there was a general set of beliefs, but this ‘set of beliefs’ came from what they had learned and heard from Christ. Not to be scandalous or anything, but I doubt even those earliest apostles could have explained what the Trinity was, exactly. It took centuries for theologians–working with the apostles’ own divinely inspired writings–to figure out how the Trinity actually ‘works’ (not to mention determining the precise nature of Christ, etc.) Yes, trinitarian thought is of course deeply present throughout the Scriptures (the only record we have of what the apostles taught), but as everyone knows, the term itself is not found there. This is the degree to which Catholic doctrine ‘develops’…it is revealed/uncovered/explained more and more.

The apostles , and their successors the Bishops of the Catholic Church, DID NOT read the four gospels and explain them as their primary way of proclaiming the Gospel.

What then do you make of the inclusion of the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass?

One cannot teach the Gospel, the Catholic faith, by reading scripture and explaining it. That would result in ignorant Catholics, just like we have today, and the Church could never have grown.

Catholics are ignorant today because they read Scripture too much? Or because the Church believes that by reading and explaining Scripture (ie, approximately half of the Mass celebrated each and every day…) they will learn to embrace the Catholic faith?

 

[dcdurel]

I never claimed that John preached by reading the Gospels. That was historically impossible. But the successors to those apostolic authors *did. *And that is what we are to do.

 No they didn't.  When they used words to proclaim the Gospel it is two basic parts.

The first part is to tell who Jesus is and why He came.
That is to tell that Jesus is the Son of God, who the Father sent out of love for us to liberate us from everything that oppresses us and especially to liberate us from sin so we can be in union with Him. This is what the Church teaches. See Evangeli Nuntiandii by Pope Paul VI and Mission of the Redeemer by Pope JP II.
That is why Jesus said,
“He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,”** Luke 4:14, 17-21). **
Jesus came to proclaim libert to the captives, meaning to those are captive by sin, to proclaim recovery of sight to the blind, meaning those blinded by sin. And to let the oppressed go free, meaning those oppressed by sin.
Jesus said: “For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

Who did He ransom?  He ransomed those enslaved by sin, those who were captives to sin.   

                                       ****[John 8:34](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=34&version=50&context=verse)****

Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”
John 8:36

“Our old self was crucified with him so that…we might no longer be enslaved to sin”
Romans 6:6

God sent His son out of love for us to suffer and die and rise again to merit the grace that frees us from the slavery of sin.
“you shall call his name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. Matt 1:21
We receive this grace through the sacraments, but especially through the Eucharist. That is why we go to mass, to ask for the grace that frees us from the inclination to sin. The mass makes available the grace that Jesus merited by His death and resurrection. In other words, the mass makes available the grace that saves us, that frees us from the inclination to sin. The mass continues the work of salvation, the work of freeing us from the slavery of sin.

This is the central point of the Gospel. This was proclaimed before anything else.

Then if the pagan wanted to repent and to be freed from his sins and wanted to believe in Jesus and live a holy life, then he had to be taught the rest, that is, exactly who God is, what the Trinity is, what the sacrements are, their purpose, what the commandments are and how they teach us morality, how to pray, etc. In other words, to catechize, to teach the whole Catholic faith. The only part the scriptures necessarily played in this part was to teach salvation history and to learn about the person of Jesus. That is what the scriptures are. They are salvation history.

 

[dcdurel]

** Thus there are only two basic parts of proclaiming the Gospel when using words.

1. The initial proclamation, which teaches the central point of the Gospel, which is to le liberated from everything that oppresses us, especially sin, so we can be in union with God.
2. Catechesis, or teaching the Catholic faith. This fills out the initial proclamation and explains who God is, the Trinity, the fall, salvation, the articles of the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer. **

This is the basic part of proclaiming the Gospel. This is what the Church teaches. See the encyclicals I mentioned, plus, “The General Directory for Catechesis” to learn much more.
Notice that NO WHERE does the Church make the reading of scripture and its interpretation a primary part of proclaiming the Gospel. How could the Church do that, when the scriptures do not claim to present the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached?
The scriptures claim to present salvation history.

Now, after people become Catholic and go to mass, THEN the scriptures are read and explained, as part of the homily. That should only take a minute or so.
The second part of the homily should be the continuation of catechesis, of teaching the CATHOLIC FAITH, which is the same thing as proclaiming the Gospel.
That is why the Church teaches the liturgy is “is therefore the privileged place for catechizing the People of God.” And by catechizing the Church means teaching in an organic and systematic manner. And the Church teaches that the Catechism, not the bible, but the Catechism is “a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
Why? Because the Catechism is simply a summary of the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. It presents the living Gospel, that was handed down in Tradition.

When the people get catechized, using the Catechism as a sure norm, then the people are being proclaimed the Gospel. The same Gospel the apostles taught and preached.
Now, in catechizing the preacher is to give an exposition of the doctrine, as found in the catechisms, and also he is to use scripture as a “witness” to the teaching, to “illuminate” the teaching and to “nourish” the teaching.
Rarely does the Church say that scripture is a proof of a teaching.

That is how the apostles did it.
That is how the early Christians did it.
That is how it was done until Vatican II.
That is how the Church wants it done today.
But, after Vatican II scholars ignored the Popes when they did not understand their encyclicals, and thus Catholic scholars today do not know what the content of the Gospel is, they don’t know how to proclaim the Gospel, other than by example, and they don’t know the meaning of the central point of the Gospel.
So very few get catechized.

 

[Zahmir]

If we were talking about proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers, it wouldn’t make sense to use the Gospel as a source of authority if they didn’t accept the authority of the Bible.

If we were talking about proclaiming the Bible to Protestants, they would merely have to understand the proper interpretation of Scripture which is given to us through the Church and Tradition.

How do see, Dcdurel, that Scripture “illumines” or “nourishes” or “witnesses” to doctrine? Can you give me a concrete example? Maybe a mock Gospel reading and homily?

I don’t disagree with you, I just want to understand your sense of these words.

 

[Sixtus]

I don’t know where Christians got this crazy idea that the proclamation of the Gospel is done by reading the bible, then by giving an explanation of that reading.

Absolutely

What happens when someone asks us about what we believe and we do not have a bible to hand?

What about when someone asks us what we do not know and after invoking the Holy Spirit we begin to speak…and we too are taught by what we say

We stand by the person asking the question and we too are taught by the profound wisdom which comes forth from our mouths. This is the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit not us nor the bible