Scripture vs Tradition

[mgrfin]

I would certainly agree with that.

But I am wondering about dogmatic statements.

The Orthodox are considered part of the true Church and concluded under salvation within (ie no salvation outside the church), yet they not believe every dogma of the Roman Church.

Isn’t Dogma that which must be believed?

Oops, that is erroneous :
The Orthodox are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, and the same command applies to them as to others outside of the Catholic Church, “outside of the Church there is no salvation”.

The reason why they are outside the Catholic Church, is because they do not exist in perfect communion with Us; they are united by closest bonds because of apostolic succession and the Eucharist. So they are truly Churches. Not so of other christian communities, which are not true churches, such as the Lutherans, and Reformed, etc.

BUT THE EASTERN CHURCHES ARE NOT PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Statements coming from the Orthodox, whether dogma or scriptural interpretation are not of themselves infallible statements or beliefs.

peace

 

[DLC]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

 

[mgrfin]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

“Traditions” as you call them, are part of the Deposit of faith, just as Scripture is.

The teaching Magisterium of the Church (Tradition, as you call it),
and Scripture agree.

What does not agree are interpretations of christian communities such as the Lutherans and the Reformed regarding the meaning of Scripture. Nor do they have a uniform interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

peace

 

[Stephen_C]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

Please do not derail this thread. I don’t think this is what the OP was asking. Or wanted to discuss. If you would like start a new thread on this feel free to do so

 

[Janet_S]

I am wondering,

if Tradition is necessary for a correct interpretation of Scriptures,

Why do Catholics disagree on the meanings of certain Scriptures?

This question stems from seeing the different interpretations of Catholic doctrine among Catholics.

Catholics say that Tradition is needed to correctly interpret the Scriptures. They say that Protestants have many denominations because they each interpret the Scriptures differently. But that the Catholic church has the correct interpretation which is easily understood by all Catholics because they respect the authority of the Church

.
Did you read Stillkickin’s post from the CCC about the “Senses of Scripture” and the historical approach to reading the Bible?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2980164&postcount=13

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.”

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. 2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.” 3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in
terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem…"

We read the Bible to affirm doctrine according to the literal, allegorical, and anagogical senses or for devotional reading according to the moral sense. God speaks to us personally when we are reading the Bible devotionally, so we wouldn’t expect to get the same message as everyone else does when they read a particular passage.

I have a few questions for you though.

–What made you post this thread in the first place?

–Do you know of Catholics who deny basic doctrines (the Trinity or the bodily Resurrection of Jesus for example) based on their interpretation of the Bible?

–Do you think the Catholic Church is not clear about what it teaches?

–Is the vagueness and ambiguity of Protestantism a better approach to discerning true doctrine in your opinion?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

Take it to the Church.

 

[Janet_S]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

For the record, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts Sacred Tradition.

And another thing, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are not in competition with each other–they are both part of God’s revelation.

Reading and studying the Bible is what brings so many Protestants into the Catholic Church.

chnetwork.org/converts.htm

 

[Ginger2]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

While this is not what I am specifically asking, it is indirectly related.

I have no problem with addressing DLC’s question.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

It never can contradict.

I also like to add that the NT Scripture was born out of Sacred Tradition. Since the Apostles orally preached the Gospel of Christ.

 

[mgrfin]

.

I have a few questions for you though.

–What made you post this thread in the first place?

–Do you know of Catholics who deny basic doctrines (the Trinity or the bodily Resurrection of Jesus for example) based on their interpretation of the Bible?

–Do you think the Catholic Church is not clear about what it teaches?

–Is the vagueness and ambiguity of Protestantism a better approach to discerning true doctrine in your opinion?

Janet,

You have to understand Ginger’s purpose for being here. She is not here to learn about the Catholic faith, but to sow discord and disagreement.

So she posits threads, and then sneaks in subtle errors, for example, “The orthodox is part of the Catholic Church” (which it isn’t), and if she gets that by us, later on she will tell us that the Orthodox believe such and such, and they are part of the Catholic Church.

On and on it goes, week after week. She starts these threads to cause discord and disruption among true believers.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

While this is not what I am specifically asking, it is indirectly related.

I have no problem with addressing DLC’s question.

Ginger,

DLC’s question has been disposed of quickly and easily. Let’s move on.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Also keep in mind the Church is not built upon a two legged stool…it is built upon a three legged stool…need to include that third leg…the teaching authority of the Church.

.

 

[mgrfin]

Maybe my question is not clear.

My experience in this forum is that Catholics can disagree on the meaning of Scriptures that have been dogmatically defined. In like manner, Orthodox and deny certain dogmatic statements of the RC.

If Scripture and Tradition are equal and in agreement with each other,

and if Tradition is the means by which the meanings of Scriptures can be clearly defined and understood,

Then, why are Catholics, RC to RC and RC to EO given a pass when they disagree on dogmatically defined articles?

We must dispose of this error. THE EO IS NOT PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Please refrain from continuing this error.

Who said that Scripture and Tradition are equal?

And the main objection, what Scriptures are defined ‘de fife’ by the Roman Catholic Church. Please point out sections of the Scriptures and where you find these defined???

peace

 

[Ginger2]

"Janet:

I have a few questions for you though.

–What made you post this thread in the first place?

–Do you know of Catholics who deny basic doctrines (the Trinity or the bodily Resurrection of Jesus for example) based on their interpretation of the Bible?

–Do you think the Catholic Church is not clear about what it teaches?

–Is the vagueness and ambiguity of Protestantism a better approach to discerning true doctrine in your opinion?
Janet,

I asked this question because I have witnessed different interpretations of what the Catechism says. Since I’ve been told that Tradition is basically a definition of what certain Scriptures mean to enable and ensure a clear understanding of the Scriptures, I would like to know how Catholics account for these disagreements.

Also, because Protestants are slammed in threads for having even a slightly different interpretation. We are told that our “misinterpretation” would not occur if we accepted the teaching in the Catechism, yet, Catholics occassionally have different understandings and they do accept the teachings.

Janet,

You have to understand Ginger’s purpose for being here. She is not here to learn about the Catholic faith, but to sow discord and disagreement.

So she posits threads, and then sneaks in subtle errors, for example, “The orthodox is part of the Catholic Church” (which it isn’t), and if she gets that by us, later on she will tell us that the Orthodox believe such and such, and they are part of the Catholic Church.

On and on it goes, week after week. She starts these threads to cause discord and disruption among true believers.

The “error” you speak of comes from an “ask an apologist post” While the EO are not part of the RC, the answer said they are in communion with the RC. How can they be in communion when not accepting RC dogma. RC dogma is not a matter of choice.

Perhaps my post #11 was poorly worded.

 

[Mannyfit75]

We must dispose of this error. THE EO IS NOT PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Please refrain from continuing this error.

Who said that Scripture and Tradition are equal?

And the main objection, what Scriptures are defined ‘de fife’ by the Roman Catholic Church. Please point out sections of the Scriptures and where you find these defined???

peace

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are consider by us Catholic the Word of God.

 

[Ginger2]

Who said that Scripture and Tradition are equal?

peace

The Roman Catholic Church says so.

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

Article 2, II
82 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."44

But, that is just my Protestant interpretation.

 

[mgrfin]

I asked this question because I have witnessed different interpretations of what the Catechism says. Since I’ve been told that Tradition is basically a definition of what certain Scriptures mean to enable and ensure a clear understanding of the Scriptures, I would like to know how Catholics account for these disagreements.

Also, because Protestants are slammed in threads for having even a slightly different interpretation. We are told that our “misinterpretation” would not occur if we accepted the teaching in the Catechism, yet, Catholics occassionally have different understandings and they do accept the teachings.

The “error” you speak of comes from an “ask an apologist post” While the EO are not part of the RC, the answer said they are in communion with the RC. How can they be in communion when not accepting RC dogma. RC dogma is not a matter of choice.

Perhaps my post #11 was poorly worded.

Who ever said that the EO were in communion with the Roman Catholic Church is dead wrong. Read “Dominus Jesus”. They would never say either, that they are in communion with us.
Stop this erroroneous thought!

What disagreements? “I would like to know how Catholics account for these disagreements”. Quote these disagreements.

We don’t have disagreements regarding Scripture and Tradition, and Tradition is not there to support Sacred Scripture. Who ever taught you that?

(Edited)

peace

 

[mgrfin]

The Roman Catholic Church says so.

What you mean is equal, in power and authority?

You misquoted the CCC. What is equal is the “sentiments of devotion and reverence.” with which they are to be received.

Your ‘Protestant interpretation’ is wrong.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

What you mean is equal, in power and authority?

You misquoted the CCC. What is equal is the “sentiments of devotion and reverence.” with which they are to be received.

Your ‘Protestant interpretation’ is wrong.

peace

OK, so where does the Catechism say that “Tradition always trumps Scripture”? (quoted are your words from another thread.)

 

[mgrfin]

OK, so where does the Catechism say that “Tradition always trumps Scripture”? (quoted are your words from another thread.)

The CCC is not the only source book for Dogma. When I was taught Dogma, the CCC didn’t exist. It is just a compliation.

The matter is common sense. A particular Scriptural passage cannot be quoted as contrary to a defined dogma of the Church.

You cannot quote John 21:15:17 as disproving the Primacy of Peter.

Quote for me some Scripture which disproves a doctrine of the Faith.

peace