Scripture vs Tradition

[Janet_S]

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…

“Slightly different interpretations” are one thing, but that’s not usually the case when we are talking about the diversity of Protestant beliefs. Protestants disagree on major issues like salvation–is it once saved always saved or can you lose your salvation? Pretty important stuff.

The Eucharist–is Christ truly present in the Eucharist or is it a simple memorial meal? Baptism–is Baptism necessary for salvation and the remission of sins or is it just an external action that represents faith? That’s major, don’t you think?

The definition of faith–what is required and does it include obedience to God’s law? Is holiness necessary?

Even core Christian teachings like the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Virgin birth, the definition of the Godhead or the Trinity, and the miracles of Jesus are denied by some denominations.

There may be some exceptions among individual Catholics–not all Catholics are knowledgable and not all Catholics are obedient-- but by and large Catholics do not disagree about these beliefs. And from the top–the Magisterium–the Pope in union with the bishops–these doctrines are unambiguously defined.

As a Catholic, I have no problem determining what the Church teaches about particular doctrine. I look to the clear teaching of the Magisterium.

What “Magisterium” do you look to when doctrinal disputes on Biblical interpretations arise?

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.

They aren’t in communion with the CC. Just ask an Orthodox Christian, they will tell you.

Yet all baptized Christians–both Orthodox and Protestants–are united to the CC in an imperfect way by our common beliefs–especially, in your case, the veneration of Sacred Scripture as LG says (see my previous post.)

 

[Janet_S]

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.

You’re right about this:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.

 

[mgrfin]

“Slightly different interpretations” are one thing, but that’s not usually the case when we are talking about the diversity of Protestant beliefs. Protestants disagree on major issues like salvation–is it once saved always saved or can you lose your salvation? Pretty important stuff.

The Eucharist–is Christ truly present in the Eucharist or is it a simple memorial meal? Baptism–is Baptism necessary for salvation and the remission of sins or is it just an external action that represents faith? That’s major, don’t you think?

The definition of faith–what is required and does it include obedience to God’s law? Is holiness necessary?

Even core Christian teachings like the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Virgin birth, the definition of the Godhead or the Trinity, and the miracles of Jesus are denied by some denominations.

There may be some exceptions among individual Catholics–not all Catholics are knowledgable and not all Catholics are obedient-- but by and large Catholics do not disagree about these beliefs. And from the top–the Magisterium–the Pope in union with the bishops–these doctrines are unambiguously defined.

As a Catholic, I have no problem determining what the Church teaches about particular doctrine. I look to the clear teaching of the Magisterium.

What “Magisterium” do you look to when doctrinal disputes on Biblical interpretations arise?

They aren’t in communion with the CC. Just ask an Orthodox Christian, they will tell you.

Yet all baptized Christians–both Orthodox and Protestants–are united to the CC in an imperfect way by our common beliefs–especially, in your case, the veneration of Sacred Scripture as LG says (see my previous post.)

Janet,

An excellent, clear and unemotional response to Ginger, pointing out where she continues to go wrong, by posting “truths”, which are not truths, and errors about our beliefs. Thanks.

peace

 

[JimG]

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.

Just a clarification. That’s not what Tradition is. Tradition is the teaching of Christ which was handed down to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church through their successors. Scripture is part of it–that part which was specifically written down. The Church was of course, proclaiming Christ’s teachings before the new testament was written and decided upon.

 

[Ginger2]

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

You are moving farther off topic. Both Scripture and Tradition must be consistent with each other.

The point is: the purpose of Tradition is to clarify the true meaning of Scriptures. If that is not it’s purpose then Catholics on this forum need to stop using that definition to support their statements.

I am not saying that is the only purpose, but it is one purpose that has clearly been stated to me over and over again - that Scripture cannot be understood without the clarifyinf component found in Tradition.

If then, Tradition fails to make clear the true meaning of Scriptures, how is it more useful then say…cross referencing to understand the meaning?

 

[Ginger2]

Just a clarification. That’s not what Tradition is. Tradition is the teaching of Christ which was handed down to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Church through their successors. Scripture is part of it–that part which was specifically written down. The Church was of course, proclaiming Christ’s teachings before the new testament was written and decided upon.

Before I comment, please state exactly what is meant by Tradition with a capital T.

 

[JimG]

Before I comment, please state exactly what is meant by Tradition with a capital T.

I just did. Tradition is the teaching of Christ handed down from Christ to the Apostles to the Church.

 

[mgrfin]

Before I comment, please state exactly what is meant by Tradition with a capital T.

(Edited)

We use a capital “T” to distinguish Tradition from what was handed down at the campsites of ancient man to his progeny. Tradition with a small t.

Tradition is the unwritten word of God. In the sense we use a capital “S” to refer to Sacred Scripture, we use a capital T to illustrate a body of truths revealed by God to the apostles, and not committed to writing by them, but handed down by word of mouth. These truths were later committed to writing, particularly by the Fathers of the Church, and have been preserved and handed down to the present day.

(Edited)

peace

 

[mgrfin]

You are moving farther off topic. Both Scripture and Tradition must be consistent with each other.

The point is: the purpose of Tradition is to clarify the true meaning of Scriptures. If that is not it’s purpose then Catholics on this forum need to stop using that definition to support their statements.

I am not saying that is the only purpose, but it is one purpose that has clearly been stated to me over and over again - that Scripture cannot be understood without the clarifyinf component found in Tradition.

If then, Tradition fails to make clear the true meaning of Scriptures, how is it more useful then say…cross referencing to understand the meaning?

Ginger,

You have totally missed the point of Tradition. Whoever taught you that Tradition had as its purpose to define and support Scripture.

Scripture is what was written down during Apostolic times. Tradition are those truths handed down verbally by the Apostles, and later written down by the Patristic Fathers.

You can argue all sorts of things: 'scripture is equal to Tradition" (not true), 'scripture supports Tradition (partially true), Tradition supports Scripture (partially true).

Tradition are those truths verbally handed down by the Apostles, never written. Its ‘purpose’ is to be the revealed word of God given to us by the Apostles, but not in written form.

The theses on which you are trying to posit this thread are all wrong.

I don’t know who these Catholics are whom you claim are asserting certain things about Tradition’s purpose is to support Scripture. That is not the purpose of Tradition. And their statements are irrelevant to this thread.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

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

peace

Excuse me mgrfin, but how is it your place to deny discussion it I don’t feel it interferes with my question. The two questions are indirectly related and could possibly add insight into one another…

 

[Ginger2]

(Edited)

We use a capital “T” to distinguish Tradition from what was handed down at the campsites of ancient man to his progeny. Tradition with a small t.

Tradition is the unwritten word of God. In the sense we use a capital “S” to refer to Sacred Scripture, we use a capital T to illustrate a body of truths revealed by God to the apostles, and not committed to writing by them, but handed down by word of mouth. These truths were later committed to writing, particularly by the Fathers of the Church, and have been preserved and handed down to the present day.

(Edited)

peace

Please look at the title of this thread…Tradition is included in the topic.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,
Whoever taught you that Tradition had as its purpose to define and support Scripture.

You, for one.

 

[mgrfin]

Please look at the title of this thread…Tradition is included in the topic.

Why we use capital letters versus lower case letters is hardly on thread.

You are really struggling here, Ginger.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

You, for one.

If I was erroneous, I apologize. Please point me in the direction of where that error occured.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

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

I have no problem with addressing DLC’s question.

Fine. Answer DLC’s question.

And while you are at it, explain your thesis of this thread:

We have already said that Tradition isn’t necessary to support Scripture. Tell us:

WHAT SCRIPTURES ARE CATHOLICS DISAGREEING ABOUT?

peace

 

[Ginger2]

If I was erroneous, I apologize. Please point me in the direction of where that error occured.

peace

I am unable to find the original post.

 

[Ginger2]

Fine. Answer DLC’s question.

And while you are at it, explain your thesis of this thread:

We have already said that Tradition isn’t necessary to support Scripture. Tell us:

WHAT SCRIPTURES ARE CATHOLICS DISAGREEING ABOUT?

peace

Why should a Protestant answer a question directed at Catholics.

 

[Ginger2]

If I was erroneous, I apologize. Please point me in the direction of where that error occured.

peace

I do appreciate your apology and admission of your error.

 

[Janet_S]

Ginger,

You have totally missed the point of Tradition. Whoever taught you that Tradition had as its purpose to define and support Scripture.

Scripture is what was written down during Apostolic times. Tradition are those truths handed down verbally by the Apostles, and later written down by the Patristic Fathers.

You can argue all sorts of things: 'scripture is equal to Tradition" (not true), 'scripture supports Tradition (partially true), Tradition supports Scripture (partially true).

Tradition are those truths verbally handed down by the Apostles, never written. Its ‘purpose’ is to be the revealed word of God given to us by the Apostles, but not in written form.

The theses on which you are trying to posit this thread are all wrong.

I don’t know who these Catholics are whom you claim are asserting certain things about Tradition’s purpose is to support Scripture. That is not the purpose of Tradition. And their statements are irrelevant to this thread.

peace

I am a Catholic who believes Sacred Tradition helps to illuminate Sacred Scripture.

Here’s an example of what I mean by Tradition illuminating Scripture: As a Catholic, I believe in the Trinity on the basis of Sacred Tradition. Why do I say that? Because I cannot discern the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible alone for the simple reason that the word “Trinity” is not even in the Bible. Yet I and everyone else who accepts this Tradition can read the Bible and clearly see the doctrine of the Trinity throughout–from Genesis to Revelation.

Yet if you discard Tradition, and rely only on the Bible, not everyone comes to the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. Many religious groups accept the Bible and don’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Jews don’t. The LDS’s and the JW’s don’t. The Arians didn’t, and they argued from the vantage point of sola Scriptura. The oneness Pentecostals don’t.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a part of Sacred Tradition that is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Those who accept this Tradition, though, will read the Bible in this light. We see the Trinity throughout salvation history–from the Creation story of Genesis to the beginnings of the Church at Pentecost.

 

[mgrfin]

I do appreciate your apology and admission of your error.

Not so fast, Ginger. You could not find the post. Therefore, there seems to be no error.

There is no apology therefore.

This thread is going nowhere, Ginger.

peace