Scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings

[dcdurel]

I
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.

Since scripture is salvation history, in presenting that history the bible mentions parts of teachings in passing, or by example, or sometimes directly, or sometimes by typology.

Before Vatican II, the Church taught that the pastors should go through the entire Roman Catechism over a period of about 4 years so that all Catholics would learn all the basic teachings of the Catholic faith, which is the Gospel the apostles handed down. Vatican II did not change any of this. Both Catechisms are now available, and the Church teaches that the liturgy is the “priviledged place for catechizing the people of God.” The Catechism is “the sure norm for teaching the faith”, and the Catechism presents the “living tradition” that the apostles handed down. In other words, the Catechism, along with the initial proclamation, is simply a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. So during the homily, in addition to the explanation of the readings, which is usually so obvious that it should usually take only a minute or so, the pastors were to teach the Gospel that apostles handed down.
Sometimes pastors and teachers would only present the teaching, and they would ignore the scriptures. This method made the teachings dry, dull, boring, hard to remember, and separated from life.
Thus the Popes taught that when we give Church teaching, we are supposed to use scripture, when possible, as a “witness” to the teaching, to “illuminate” the teaching and to “nourish” the teaching. These are the exact words I got from official Chruch documents. We are also to use the examples of the saints, and the witness of the Church fathers, etc.
For example, the Church teaches that on the last day we will all be judged. This teaching has come down from the apostles, who learned it directly from Jesus Christ.
But the Church teaches that when giving this teaching the teacher should use scripture as a witness to the teaching, or to illuminate the teaching or to nourish the
teaching.
Thus, most of the time when someone presents this teaching, they use Matthew 25 as a witness to the teaching. This way, the teaching sticks in our minds better, we remember it better, we understand it better.
And there are many other passages we can give as a witness to the teachings.
The mistake some people make is that the teaching on final judgement comes from Matthew 25, or from other passages in the bible. It doesn’t. The teaching comes from the apostles, who learned directly from God. And there is more to the teaching than just what is in Matthew 25.
Another example. Lets say someone is presenting the teaching on mortal sin, sins that can cause us to lose our salvation. Sometimes this concept is difficult for some converts to understand, especially if they have been taught that all sins are equal.
Then we should go to scripture to “illuminate” the teaching. There is the teaching in the letter of John about not all sin being deadly (mortal). And there are numerous examples in the bible about mortal sin.
For example in Galatians 3:26 St. Paul writes, “For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Thus, they all had faith, and therefore had the beginnings of salvation, they had been freed from their sins, from the strong inclination to sin through the grace Jesus merited which they received through the sacraments. But, this grace did not force them to obey Jesus, it only made it possible. Some still chose to continue in sin. Thus in Galatians 5:19-21 St. Paul warns them,
“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, jealousies, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Contentions, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Notice that St. Paul had to warn them at least twice that if they continued in these sins they would not go to heaven. So we can use scripture as a witness to the teaching that we can lose our salvation by mortal sin. Notice that all sins don’t cause us to lose our salvation, but only the worst ones. In revelations the bible tells of other people who were in hell because of mortal sins.

 

[dcdurel]

In Corinthians Chapter5 we can show how all sins aren’t equal. St. Paul writes about some who were sinning by drunkeness, extortion, and one by fornication with his father’s wife. Then he writes in 5:13, “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Now, since everyone sins, and if all sins were equal, then everyone should have been called “wicked” and all should have been put away. But St. Paul only calls that one person “wicked” and only that one person should have been put away. Thus, the scripture illuminates the teaching of the Church, handed down in the Gospel from the apostles, that some sins are worse than others.

The errors we pick up, from Protestants, or from Catholic scholars who are misled by Protestants, is that ALL Church teachings MUST be based on scripture.
That is false. The teachings don’t originate in scripture. They all originate with Jesus, the fullness of revelation, who taught them to His apostles directly and throught the Holy Spirit, who taught them to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church.
So scripture is useful for teaching. But scripture is not the original source of the teachings. Scripture will seldom be complete and explicit in those teachings. Scripture will not have all teachings. Scripture is salvation history. It does NOT claim to present the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. These are reasons why Protestants can’t agree on any teaching.
So it is only throught the Popes and the teachings they authorized, such as the catechisms, that we can get this straight. Scholars constantly mislead us.

Thus the Church teaches that, Jesus is the fullness of revelation, not the bible.
All saving truth is handed down in the Gospel that apostles taught and preached, that is, in Tradition, because they learned it through Jesus, the fullness of revelation. Through this Tradition the full and living Gospel is handed down to each generation. (nothing is lost or forgotten). The apostles and their successors taught this Gospel by organizing everything they learned into the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer. That is why catechisms are organized this way. Catechisms are simply the summary of the teachings the apostles orally handed down.
When teaching this Gospel, (catechizing), the teachers should use scripture to nourish, illuminate, and be a witness to the teachings. They can also use the lives of the saints, the witness of the Church fathers, etc. as the new Catechism does.
Vatican II wanted more use of scripture when giving these teachings in the homily. Too many pastors would just give the teachings and ignore the scriptures. If God put teachings in salvation history, it was for a reason. He wants us to use those teachings when we proclaim the Gospel.
Now we have the opposite. Now “scholars” tell priests that the Gospel is confined to the Gospels and the readings and when they explain the readings they are using the primary method of proclaiming the Gospel. That is pure nonsense. No where does the Church teach that the primary method of proclaiming the Gospel is to read the Gospels and the scriptures then explain them.
There is no document, teaching, idea, practice, etc., of the Catholic Church that this is the primary method of proclaiming the Gospel. It was NOT the primary way the apostles spread the Gospel. It never was and never will be the teaching of the Church. Yet it is the common practice because of scholars who teach homiletics.
So today ordinary Catholics don’t get the full and living Gospel. They aren’t told that the Church teachings on abortion come from God Himself. They aren’t told that the teachings on praying to the saints, purgatory, etc., are handed down in the Gospel the apostles taught and they come from Jesus Himself.

All these errors can only be corrected when scholars take the Popes as LEADERS, instead of mere advisors who can be ignored. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical “Evangelii Nuntiandi” must be studied and learned by all scholars who teach homiletics, so that they will at least understand what the Gospel is. Pope John Paul II first two encyclicals continue where “Evangelii Nuntiandi” left off. He authorized the General Directory for Catechesis, which completes these teachings. All these are a continuation and explanation of Vatican II, which wanted a re-evangelaztion of the world, esp, Europe.
Until Catholic scholars, and all Catholics who can educate themselves, put the teachings of these Popes in their encyclicals first, nothing is going to change.

 

[Zahmir]

Can we agree on a “both/and” and not a “one over the other”?

You have definitely illumined some aspects of Tradition which I had not considered before. I do think there is much that is often underestimated especially with an understanding of the special revelation Christ made to His Apostles. How extensive this special revelation was – If it was truly “everything” or if that is a metaphor for something else – is a matter for debate, but I do believe that the revelation that they received was devoid of metaphor and possessed in itself Truth which is totally intransmittable by words in its entirety.

But yes, too, Scripture does possess Truth. It is in God’s design, moreover, that Scripture would make use of metaphor and the tools of language that could convey information in a way that all – the wise and unwise – could come to appreciate. I would recommend reading the beginning to the Summa Theologiae (ST.I.1.9-10) by the Saint Thomas Aquinas, my buddy.

So I don’t know what you mean by “Salvation history” but certainly, Scripture is more than a record of historical events, and, as God is the ultimate author of Scripture, we can most certainly claim the Bible as authoritative, understood in the proper senses.

Finally, just as Christ preached to His Apostles, so too did the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son in accordance with the Wisdom of God (Christ Himself), inspire those authors of Scripture. The source of Truth is the same, but the methods of conveyance differ. It is our “task” and our special privilege as Christians to question and to try to understand the Wisdom of God and His wise dispersal of Truth, in the hope that we ourselves might grow in wisdom through the perfection of Charity.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think your dating is a little late. There are several credal formulations evident in the New Testament, and in the early fathers.

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.

How can you say this when the Apostles are the ones writing credal statements?!

This is the degree to which Catholic doctrine ‘develops’…it is revealed/uncovered/explained more and more.

The divine public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The church does not add doctrine.

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

The liturgy was patterned after the synagogue service of the first century.

 

[dcdurel]

Can we agree on a “both/and” and not a “one over the other”?

You have definitely illumined some aspects of Tradition which I had not considered before. I do think there is much that is often underestimated especially with an understanding of the special revelation Christ made to His Apostles. How extensive this special revelation was – If it was truly “everything” or if that is a metaphor for something else – is a matter for debate, but I do believe that the revelation that they received was devoid of metaphor and possessed in itself Truth which is totally intransmittable by words in its entirety.

I don’t think how extensive this revelation is, is that much a matter for debate. The Church teaches that the Gospel the apostles preached was the "source of all saving truth and moral discipline" and it contained the "fullness of the truth that God wanted to reveal about himself".
This is not my teaching, but the teaching of the Church that Jesus founded. Jesus founded this Church to transmit His Gospel. Thus, this teaching is the teaching of Jesus Himself.
Has the Church always taught that some of these teachings are also handed down in the written Gospels. Of course. Who ever denied that? But the point is the Church knew every teaching of salvation before a single word of the New Testament was written. And the New Testament does not even claim to be a summary of the this Gospel that the apostles taught and preached. If this Gospel contains everything, and the bible does not even claim to present a summary of this Gospel, then how in the world could that Church learn additional teachings on salvation from the bible? And Jesus said salvation comes from believing this Gospel that they taught and preached.

This teaching of the Church is certainly in conformity with scripture where Jesus is “both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.” Vatican II, Dei Verbum. “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)
So it is not in St. Paul, or John, or any biblical writer that we find “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”.
It is not scripture that is “both the mediator and the fullness of revelation” but ONLY , ONLY Jesus Christ.

Catholics don’t follow the tradition of men and make scripture alone our authority. Catholics start off with God Himself, who revealed Himself in His Son Jesus. It is Jesus, not scripture that is both the “mediator and the fullness of revelation.”
By starting off with the bible, instead of Jesus, we immediately lose most of the teachings of God’s word, because the bible is NOT “the mediator and the fullness of revelation.”
By starting off with Jesus, we lose nothing, but gain everything in regarding the truths of salvation.

 

[dcdurel]

Again, I never said scripture does not possess Truth. I said it does not possess all truth. Only in Jesus has God revealed all saving truth. And He taught all this truth to His Church.

So I don’t know what you mean by “Salvation history” but certainly, Scripture is more than a record of historical events, and, as God is the ultimate author of Scripture, we can most certainly claim the Bible as authoritative, understood in the proper senses.

I never denied that.

Finally, just as Christ preached to His Apostles, so too did the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son in accordance with the Wisdom of God (Christ Himself), inspire those authors of Scripture. The source of Truth is the same, but the methods of conveyance differ. It is our “task” and our special privilege as Christians to question and to try to understand the Wisdom of God and His wise dispersal of Truth, in the hope that we ourselves might grow in wisdom through the perfection of Charity.

Faith comes from hearing the Gospel the Church preaches. Faith does not come from reading the bible. This Gospel is the “source of all saving truth and moral discipline”. This Gospel comes from Jesus, who is the “both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.”
(Vatican II).

Why do you want to make Jesus less then the fullness of revelation? When you make subsequent biblical authors add doctrines to what Jesus has revealed, then Jesus is no longer the “fullness of revelation.” He is now imperfect. Now, St.Paul or James, or John has to complete the doctrines God has revealed through Jesus.

But the Church teaches:

1. Jesus Christ is the "fullness of all revelation."1
   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
   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

 

[Zahmir]

I agree, Jesus Christ is everything.

But I just want to rephrase what I said in my previous post and I would like you to respond to it.

Scripture/Tradition:

The authority of Tradition you have defended quite well, and, at the very least, I dont’ have the knowledge to argue with you on that.

We have both said before in different ways, Jesus Christ, being the fullness of Revelation, revealed Truth to His Apostles who in turn, with the help of the Holy Spirit, “remembered” what Christ had revealed to them. This occurs in the Church today, as we say the “Holy Spirit guides the Church to infallible proclamations.”

There is, however, a different way that Christ reveals His Truth to His people. Not only has He revealed it to His Apostles, but it is in His plan that Truth would be revealed in Scripture. Not coincidentally, it is the Holy Spirit who inspires those authors, just as the Holy Spirit assists the Church in “remembering” what Christ revealed. Moreover, it is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father AND THE SON who inspires the authors of Scripture. It is almost a perfect parallel, and, would it to be explicated further, probably perfect.

There is no underlying difference between Scripture and Tradition. Whatever you might assert of Tradition, must be true of Scripture as well, in some way.

Finally, there is the question of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, which we have been dancing around for quite some time. But that is a special question with its own implications. But of course, it is only the Tradition of the Church which is the accurate interpreter of Scripture.

I hope this helps. And I would like to hear your response.

 

[dcdurel]

I agree, Jesus Christ is everything.
Scripture/Tradition:
The authority of Tradition you have defended quite well, and, at the very least, I dont’ have the knowledge to argue with you on that.
We have both said before in different ways, Jesus Christ, being the fullness of Revelation, revealed Truth to His Apostles who in turn, with the help of the Holy Spirit, “remembered” what Christ had revealed to them. This occurs in the Church today, as we say the “Holy Spirit guides the Church to infallible proclamations.”

There is, however, a different way that Christ reveals His Truth to His people. Not only has He revealed it to His Apostles, but it is in His plan that Truth would be revealed in Scripture. Not coincidentally, it is the Holy Spirit who inspires those authors, just as the Holy Spirit assists the Church in “remembering” what Christ revealed. Moreover, it is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father AND THE SON who inspires the authors of Scripture. It is almost a perfect parallel, and, would it to be explicated further, probably perfect.

There is no underlying difference between Scripture and Tradition. Whatever you might assert of Tradition, must be true of Scripture as well, in some way.

Yes, we all agree that the Holy Spirit inspires every word of Scripture and just as God, in Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the Church.

**
But, there is a big, big difference between Scripture and Tradition. ** While it is true that both are the word of God, thus are equal in that sense, they are distinct as the Catechisms says.

There is much more in the Catechism on Tradition and Scripture that we have mentioned. For one thing, all the old Testament is scripture, but none is the actual Gospel.
The Church says the Gospel was forshadowed in the OT.
So Scripture is goes far back, from the creation till Revelations. The Church seems to emphasize the Gospel with Tradition, because although the Jews had tradition, Jesus completes and is the fullness of revelation and He handed down all this revelation in Tradition, and only some in scripture. Thus, all of sacred Tradition is the Gospel, where all of scripture is not the Gospel.

The entire Gospel is transmitted in Tradition. The entire Gospel is not transmitted in Scripture. Remember, this Gospel is what Jesus taught and preached. Thus, everything Jesus taught and preached in regards to salvation is contained in Tradition.

 Scripture has much more than what Jesus taught and preached.  It has all of salvation history up to that time, and till the last book was written.   But, there is no teaching of the OT, or the Jewish religion that Jesus did not complete and perfect.  That is why the Church says the Gospel the apostles preached was the "source of all saving truth and moral discipline".   This Gospel certainly did not have all of the details of salvation history.

Scripture seems to be more directed toward salvation history. Tradition, is almost all the direct teachings of God. So as far as teachings are concerned, Tradition is far, far greater than scripture. That is why the Church commands us to interpret Scripture according to Tradition. **As far as salvation history is concerned, Scripture is far greater than Tradition. **That is why we look to scripture and not to Tradition for details of salvation history.

Protestants think that Scripture is the source of all God’s teachings. It isn’t and it does not claim to be. Scripture itself says that only the apostles were taught everything.
Scripture itself says salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached and taught.

 

[dcdurel]

They are upset when Catholics make Tradition far greater than scripture in regards to teachings. But, we have to. Tradition is what God taught. Scripture is what God wrote, and contains only some of what He taught. These writings of scripture are concerned mostly with salvation history. But, they also contain some teachings, imperfectly expressed, but lived out, in the form of salvation history. They are useful for teaching, as St. Paul writes, but they don’t teach by themselves. Faith comes from Tradition, not from scripture. For St. Paul and the Catechisms says, faith comes from hearing, Faith does not come from reading. What is heard is teaching and preaching, which by definition is Tradition, not scripture.

The problem today is that even Catholics have been misled into thinking the Scripture is the original source of the Gospel. They actually think that the Church learned her doctrines from the bible, the way Protestants try to do, but can’t. Catholics think that the Catechisms are simply summaries of all the teachings of the bible, interpreted according to Tradition.

 That is false.  The Church says the Catechisms present the living Tradition.
   "– Sacred Scripture as, "the word of God written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit", (438) and the *Catechism of the Catholic Church,* as a significant contemporary expression of the living Tradition of the Church and a sure norm for teaching the faith, are called, each in its own way and according to its specific authority, to nourish catechesis in the Church of today."

Thus, the Catchisms express what the apostles taught and preached, the full and living Gospel, the source of all saving truth, which came directly from Jesus. The is why the Catechism is a “sure norm for teaching the faith”. The Catechism is simply a summary of the Gospel that apostles taught and preached. Scripture primarily is more concerned with salvation history.

 

[Zahmir]

For one thing, all the old Testament is scripture, but none is the actual Gospel.

Can you find sources to back up this claim?

Thanks.

 

[LittleDeb]

I am coming late so I hope I don’t disrupt too much. But since my purpose is to put this all in “a nutshell,” late is good. First off: I agree utterly and totally with all of you. (With the exception of a banned poster. )

Here’s why:

What I see being discussed is the three legs of the Church.

**Authority->Tradition->Scripture

**All three are completely and totally equal. All three are indispensable. AND they must always be viewed in this order.

What dcdurel is discussing is that the Protestant error is misunderstanding the order and flow of the three. Authority came first, “On this rock…” from that flowed Tradition, (before authority, everything was a “tradition of men”) From Tradition flowed the Canon of Scripture, (Until defined as canon even the books of the OT were in dispute.)

Their error lies in believing that Tradition flows from Scripture. Because of that profound error they have no idea where to plug in Authority.

What Rach620 is countering is that a possible Catholic person’s error is that because Scripture is the last leg it might be viewed as a shorter or less important leg. She is saying that even though Scripture was defined last, it is no less equal than the other two. It takes all three legs of equal length for the Church to firmly stand.

I have been pondering all of these things lately because I have been re-studying Theology of the Body. In it our late Holy Father encourages seeking out how it was “In the beginning” and then understanding the flow from there. And I’ve been pondering what I hear from converts 99% of the time and that is, “It all came down to Authority.”

So I see the three legs of the Church thusly: Authority- Everything Jesus gave us. Tradition- Everything of that we can live here. Scripture- Everything of that, which we can carry.

Lord forgive me if this is disrespectful but I have always viewed Scripture as “the portable Jesus.”

So how’d I do?

 

[Rach620]

dcdurel,

I’ve been hanging back from this debate, lurking and reading what has been posted but not exerting the effort to post, thinking over what I might say.

Here’s the thing: I think you’re both misinterpreting both what the Church teaches and what my argument is regarding what the Church teaches.

No where did I claim that the source of all the Church’s teachings was the written Gospel. I have made this point several times. What I am steadfastly arguing is that the source of the Church’s teachings is the Gospel–the good news of the salvation accomplished for us by our Savior, Christ the Incarnate Word. Tradition is not the source of the Church’s teachings, it is but the avenue towards understanding the divine revelation made known to man in Christ.

It is my perception that at times you even put Tradition (which you call ‘the Gospel the apostles preached’) as the ultimate source of authority/divine revelation, above that made known by Christ Himself. This is an error, and causes you to claim that the apostolic Tradition is entirely separate from the written Gospels, another error.

What LittleDeb said is correct. Christ sent out the apostles to preach and teach, and sent the Holy Spirit to inspire and bless them in their endeavor. In preaching and teaching, not only did they establish the line of bishops which continues even today in our Holy Father, they eventually wrote down–at the inspiration of the same Spirit which works in the apostles and their successors–some of the basic lessons of the revelation made known to them by Christ.

In this way, as Catholics of the 21st century (or even, if we were around, as Catholics of the 2nd century) we have these two avenues towards understanding divine revelation open to us: Scripture and Tradition. We need the orthodox Tradition of the Church to correctly understand Scripture, but just as ‘nothing new’ can be added to the deposit of faith by Scripture, nor can it be added by the apostolic Tradition. Both are accountable to the other.

This is why theology/sacred doctrine has long focused on the correct interpretation of Scripture, and this is how many theological disputes of past centuries have been settled. The great theologians, doctors of the Church, have not turned to an interior sort of ‘revelation’ in refuting heresies, they have time and time again seen fit to disprove the theological claims of heretics by showing that their interpretations of Scripture were faulty, perhaps also throwing some philosophical/rational argument in there for good measure. All of this, of course, is done within the Tradition of the Church, but the ultimate and infallible sources of authority have been Scripture (and, to be fair, the declarations of Church councils, which are quite different from the general apostolic authority of the bishops in the manner in which they are articulated).

I remind you that even bishops have been found in error throughout the history of our Church; what may disprove their various theses is the written word of God which of course does not contain the fullness of the truth of our faith, but *does *contain much more than you give it credit for.

I find this distinction you’re raising between the ‘Church teachings’ found in Tradition and the ‘salvation history’ of Scripture actually quite unbelievable. Are not the teachings of our faith brought to life in the very person of Christ, in the reality of our creation *and *salvation? Is this mystery not the source of our understanding of ourselves as persons in relationship with our God, upon which all of the Church’s teachings and very understanding of herself are built? And is that mystery not brought to life in the very Word of God, He who is Incarnate and whom we receive sacramentally in the Eucharist, also present in the spoken and written words of the Gospel? The ‘salvation history’ written for us in the Bible isn’t just a fun story with a guy named Jesus; it is a story which has meaning at many, many levels for every person–and this meaning extends far beyond the value of the stories themselves (as stories).

The beauty of our faith lies in its supreme unity above all things. Christ makes Himself known to us in so many ways; by so distancing Catholicism from Scripture–out of whatever ardent love you might have for Tradition–you are at the very least diminishing this fact.

I might post again to reply to a few specific statements which have been made…but these are my thoughts at this point.

I think LittleDeb has presented a good analogy, and that Zahmir has some pointed questions which deserve a concise and direct answer.

That’s probably all for tonite…

 

[rrochon]

While Catholics and protestants can agree on many truths, we want to always remember that every “Truth” that protestants have is a Catholic Truth that they have not discarded yet.

In the Catholic Church is the “Fullness of Truth” and it is the responsibility of every Catholic to share this Faith with those who do not have it, or who do not have it all.

Many years ago there was a columnist, Dale Francis, in “Our Sunday Visitor”, who had been a Methodist preacher. He wrote that people would often ask him why he converted to Catholicism. He said that he would answer that he did not convert, or change, religions. He still believed all the truths that he held before he became a Catholic, but he received the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. He now had all of the Sacraments and the sacramentals, as well as the help of the intercession of the Saints, and devotions that he never realized existed.

 

[dcdurel]

dcdurel,
No where did I claim that the source of all the Church’s teachings was the written Gospel. I have made this point several times. What I am steadfastly arguing is that the source of the Church’s teachings is the Gospel–the good news of the salvation accomplished for us by our Savior, Christ the Incarnate Word. Tradition is not the source of the Church’s teachings, it is but the avenue towards understanding the divine revelation made known to man in Christ.

Now you contradict yourself. First you say the written Gospel is NOT the source of all Church teachings, then you say “Tradition is not the source of the Church’s teachings.”
Well all Church teachings are handed down in Scripture or Tradition. There is no other way. If Tradition is not the source of what Jesus taught, then that only leaves scripture. Thus you contradict yourself.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make myself in regards to what the Church teaches… Jesus is the fullness of revelation. Jesus taught everything regarding the truths of salvation to His apostles. They handed down this full and living Gospel to their successors, the bishops of the Catholic Church in Tradition. The Church teaches that the Gospel they handed down in Tradition is the the "source of all saving truth and moral discipline" and “the fullness of what God wanted to reveal about Himself”
Thus, as far as saving truths and the fullness of what God wanted to reveal about Himself, the Church knew it all and handed it down to the bishops before a word of the NT was written… The Church then says that “certain elements of this Tradition” were written in the Gospels. Other elements were written in the rest of the NT. But notice that the Church knew all these elements, possessed them all and was teaching and preaching them all before a word of the NT was written.
Again, the Church teaches:
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.”

Since the all the Church believes is handed down in Tradition, then scripture can add no new saving truth to what the Church already knew. Therefore scripture is not the original source of any Church teaching. The Church knew all her teachings before a single word of the NT was written. Jesus taught the apostles everything directly and through the Holy Spirit directly.

There is no Church teaching that says the Church learned any new revelation concerning saving truth in scripture that the apostles did not already know.

If you are so sure the Church is wrong in all this, then please give us the teaching of saving truth the Church did not learn until scripture was written.

It is my perception that at times you even put Tradition (which you call ‘the Gospel the apostles preached’) as the ultimate source of authority/divine revelation, above that made known by Christ Himself.

How could you get that perception when I have repeated over and over that the apostles learned this Gospel from Jesus Christ himself? And the only reason this Gospel contains everything, was because Jesus is the fullness of revelation.

This is an error, and causes you to claim that the apostolic Tradition is entirely separate from the written Gospels, another error.

False, I never said entirely separate. I said distinct.  That is the term the Church uses.

They both have some truths in common. Again, the Church teaches:
78. “This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it **is distinct **from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.”

 

[dcdurel]

Both are accountable to the other.

Nonsense. There is no such Church teaching.
Tradition can contain truths that are not found anywhere in Scripture. The canon of scripture is one example.

Scripture can contain details of salvation history found no where in Tradition.

They will not contradict each other, since they both come from God.

 

[Rach620]

             *                     Originally Posted by **Rach620***

I did not contradict myself. I was talking about the source of the Church’s teachings–Christ Himself, who is in His very Person divine revelation. Scripture and Tradition are the means (written and oral, respectively) of the transmission of this divine revelation, and the ‘teachings’ which go along with it.

Since the all the Church believes is handed down in Tradition, then scripture can add no new saving truth to what the Church already knew. Therefore scripture is not the original source of any Church teaching. The Church knew all her teachings before a single word of the NT was written. Jesus taught the apostles everything directly and through the Holy Spirit directly.

There is no Church teaching that says the Church learned any new revelation concerning saving truth in scripture that the apostles did not already know.
If you are so sure the Church is wrong in all this, then please give us the teaching of saving truth the Church did not learn until scripture was written.

I never once claimed that the Church learned any of divine revelation from Scripture. Again and again you have been arguing against this assertion as if it was one I actually made; I never argued such a position.

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

a) your claim that because the title of your thread is true, obviously, the correct statement is “Tradition is the source of Church teachings” (My response: neither Scripture nor tradition is the ***source ***of the Church’s teachings–CHRIST IS!)
b) various things which have been said or implied by your tone about the position of Scripture in our faith (most especially that it is not as important as Tradition and/or that it merely contains ‘salvation history’ and its depth of meaning is limited beyond that).

 

[Rach620]

                 Originally Posted by **Rach620**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2224873#post2224873)                 
             *Both are accountable to the other. *

Nonsense. There is no such Church teaching.
Tradition can contain truths that are not found anywhere in Scripture. The canon of scripture is one example.

Scripture can contain details of salvation history found no where in Tradition.

They will not contradict each other, since they both come from God.

Nonsense? *Dei Verbum *didn’t think so:

“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…Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” - para. 9

Again, you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. I said that Scripture and Tradition are *accountable *to one another, not that everything found in one is necessarily found in the other. Of course the canon was not found listed in the Scripture, but matters of faith and morals, such as the Trinity and orthodox incarnational Christology do indeed have their foundation in Scripture’s teachings.

Remember that the Scriptures are the written record of the orally transmitted Gospel; nothing which theologians have articulated since the revelation made known by Christ in Himself adds to that revelation, it just more accurately and precisely describes these mysteries as our language and collective Catholic understanding have developed. If you walked up to a second century bishop, I doubt he’d be able to ‘correctly’ define for you what the Trinity is, or perhaps even correctly assert that Christ is two natures in the one Person of the Word. The theological language simply had not developed to the point where even the successors of the apostles could accurately describe the truths of our faith. (See the disputes of Cyril and Nestorius.)

Also, this idea that Scripture is merely ‘salvation history’ is one I have addressed in my previous post. This is such a vast underestimation of the reality of the written Word of God that I cannot address it concisely… but from the CCC, on the ‘senses’ of Scripture:

The senses of Scripture

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

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

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction."85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

 

[anthony022071]

Then why do Catholic priests and theologians and our Pope continue to expound upon Old Testament scriptures and stories? It isn’t as if Jesus Christ and the scriptures are at odds. Jesus Christ is the Word become incarnate. Revelation works in both directions,forward and backward.To believe in Jesus Christ entails acceptance of the scriptures. As it is said,the New Testament is concealed in the Old,and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

 

[Deacon_James]

Having read some of the postings, I think we need to think what we are claiming.
Someone has brought up the “Filioque” those three words were inserted into the Creed after the Council of Nicea. Those three words mean “and from the” the next word to follow those three was “the Son”. The eastern theologians objected to this because the Holy Spirit is God. The western theologians translated that Christ said I must go so that I and the Father can send the Advocate. That is one translation. It also reads depending on what translation you are using, for it also reads I must go so that I can have the Father send the Advocate or Paraclete. Those three words are unnecessary to the Creed. Unfortunately these 3 words have contributed to the seperation of the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths.

Also, the Christian faith shares its foundation with the Jewish Faith, because we accepeted the Old Testament (OT) Canon from the Jews, because the OT points to Jesus. The New Teastament (NT) was not written until around the year 69. I apologize because I may be wrong about the year. What carried the Church through the early years was Oral Traditions and Teachings by the Apostles and Disciples. The writing of the Holy Scriptures was insiped by the Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as someone’s fancy or liking being writen as the “Word of God.” So, the Three Theological Pillars of the Catholic Faith are : 1. Tradition, 2. Scriptures, and 3. The Magisterium of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

John 15:15, He also said,“for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that Jesus literally rattled off every single thing that he had ever, EVER learned from the Father. Two questions:

Do you think that the Apostles remembered it all? No.

Do you think that they understood it all? No.

Now, do you really and truly think that Jesus taught them EVERYTHING? Well, what does the Bible say?

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

IOW, “I have much more to say to you, but you can’t handle it right now so I’ll hold off for now. However, I’ll send the Holy Spirit who will guide you into all truth.”

So, which is more likely?

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

Yeah, it’s #2.

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

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.

Amen!

:tiphat: