Scripture vs Tradition

[mgrfin]

::

The point of the thread is that if Tradition’s purpose is to help the faithful Catholic understand the true meaning of the Scriptures, but Catholics can sometimes disagree in how Tradition is interpreted,

How is this any different that using the Scriptures themselves to understand God?

Here are two errors in your post, and in the thread in general.

Scripture is revelation, but it is written.
Tradition is revelation, but it is unwritten.

Tradition’s purpose is revelation, not to help Catholics understand the meaning of Scripture. We have the Holy Spirit for that living in the Mystical Body of Christ, infallibly guiding her on her journey.

You say:
“Catholics sometimes disagree in how Tradition is interpreted”. You origingally said that Catholics disagree in how Scripture is interpreted. Which is it that Catholics don’t seem to understand?

You have problems with the existence of Tradition. That is the reason for your positing this thread. Don’t transfer your problem to Catholics.

Now, let’s get back to the question:
Give us the examples of Scripture that Catholics seem to dispute.
I have asked this question several times; Janet has asked it, but you refuse to answer.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

(Edited)

Give us the examples of Scripture that Catholics seem to dispute.
I have asked this question several times; Janet has asked it, but you refuse to answer.

mgrfin, Can you find a specific quote from me if I asked at the drop of a hat? There are thousands and thousand of posts in this forum. Yet, you expect me to do hours of searching in minutes. Have you no idea of how much work that is.

Maybe I should just look up all your posts - it’s bound to save me uncountable time.

Let’s start with the one where you say the Catechism is irrelevant. How many Catholics on this thread -if there is anyone left besides mgrfin - agree with his statement?

 

[Ginger2]

Or maybe the one where you say that satan speak thru Scripture

Or the one about an atheist can be saved without Jesus

(Edited)

 

[mgrfin]

Or maybe the one where you say that satan speak thru Scripture

Or the one about an atheist can be saved without Jesus

(Edited)

I never said those things. It is you twisting what I said. I will not waste my time responding to answering you on these. Once you have just said that I could see an athestist could be saved without Jesus, it is obvious you are out to twist.

(Edited)

Both Janet and I have asked you for these Scriptural quotations, (Edited).

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin, if all you want to do is be argumentative then go bother someone else

mgrfin, Can you find a specific quote from me if I asked at the drop of a hat? There are thousands and thousand of posts in this forum. Yet, you expect me to do hours of searching in minutes. Have you no idea of how much work that is.

Maybe I should just look up all your posts - it’s bound to save me uncountable time.

Let’s start with the one where you say the Catechism is irrelevant. How many Catholics on this thread -if there is anyone left besides mgrfin - agree with his statement?

Misquote, out of context.

Off-topic and off thread.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

I never said those things…

Would you like me to look them up like I did the other quote “Tradition Trumps Scripture”?

Good night mgrfin there can be no beneficial dialog with you here.

 

[mgrfin]

Would you like me to look them up like I did the other quote “Tradition Trumps Scripture”?

Good night mgrfin there can be no beneficial dialog with you here.

SHAME ON YOU, GINGER, FOR ONCE AGAIN TAKING A THREAD OFF TOPIC AND OFF THREAD.

peace

 

[Michael_Francis]

Nineteen posts have been deleted for various reasons and several more edited to remove off-topic and personal exchanges.

Please remain on topic and avoid the personal exchanges while maintaining the very soul of charity in all your posts.
MF

 

[lak611]

From this article:

As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:

(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.

(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.

 

[Ginger2]

From this article:

Quote:
As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:

(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.

(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.

I may have used poor wording…There are other doctrines that are based on Scriptures such as Mary’s sinlessness.

The gist of what I am hearing is that Catholics are free to privately interpret Scripture that has not been dogmatically defined, as long as it does not conflict with those specific dogmas. Is that correct?

 

[Janet_S]

I may have used poor wording…There are other doctrines that are based on Scriptures such as Mary’s sinlessness.

The gist of what I am hearing is that Catholics are free to privately interpret Scripture that has not been dogmatically defined, as long as it does not conflict with those specific dogmas. Is that correct?

I can’t speak for all Catholics, but I always look to the Church for guidance when I read Scriptures. I believe the Bible can speak to us personally when we read it devotionally, but I’ll leave the defining of doctrines and dogmas to the Church. After all, Christ established a Church to teach and observe all He commanded. Because He said it, I trust the Church.

You seem to imply that it’s a good thing for each of us to be free to privately interpret Scripture. I agree with you to a point–after all we all have minds and intellects and we must apprehend what is true. But I’m concerned you are confusing the meaning of what “free” is. Is freedom the license to believe whatever you are inclined to believe as long as you are sincere? Or is true freedom the right to know what is true?

I believe true freedom is the ability to know and practice what is true. Freedom is not the ability to believe whatever you are most inclined to believe. We are inclinded to believe all sorts of things, but many times we are wrong. To show you an example of what I mean, this is something that actually happened to me when I first started going to Church and reading the Bible about 9 years ago.

The first book I tackled in the Bible was Matthew. I recall coming across these verses spoken by Jesus:

Then the disciples asked him, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” He said in reply, “Elijah will indeed come and restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. Matthew 17:10-13

Now, when I read this, I didn’t know much about Christianity but I knew a lot about New Age religions so immediately I thought “Jesus is talking about reincarnation. John the Baptist is the reincarnation of Elijah. Reincarnation is taught in the Bible.”

Now if I were left to my own private interpretation and my inclination, sincere as it was, I would be wrong. Reincarnation is very much contrary to Catholic teaching, and I know that now.

So now let me ask you a question. What is more important to you–the right to stick to your own private interpretation of Scripture–even at the risk of being gravely wrong–or the right to be corrected and informed about the truth?

 

[lak611]

I may have used poor wording…There are other doctrines that are based on Scriptures such as Mary’s sinlessness.

The gist of what I am hearing is that Catholics are free to privately interpret Scripture that has not been dogmatically defined, as long as it does not conflict with those specific dogmas. Is that correct?

That is correct.

 

[guanophore]

Are you then, suggesting that the different understanding stem from failure to properly execute the eduction of the faith to the faithful?

What happens when the catechism teachers don’t all teach the exact same explanation?

Indeed I think you have hit the nail on the head here! It is a sad fact that some catechists don’t teach the faith correctly, and even priests and deacons!

It is nonetheless the responsibility of the laity to make study on their own, and not rely solely on the ordained.

 

[DLC]

Why is the church build upon more than one thing? The Bible tell us that we can build no other foundation than that which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3:11.

 

[guanophore]

What do you do when traditions disagree with the Bible?

DLC

there is one Deposit of Faith that exists in the Scripture and Tradition. Both are equal. There is not, and never has been, any disagreement between the two. This is because the HS is the author of both, and the HS does not err.

If it appears that there is a contradiction,then the individual does not understand properly one or the other.

 

[guanophore]

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

Please refrain from continuing this error.

I realize this is off topic, but there is more than one error being perpetrated here, The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Roman Rite is only one of 23 Rites. It happens to be the largest, and most prevalent in America.

Who said that Scripture and Tradition are equal?

I agree with you that the EO would be the first to avoid “Romanism”. However, there is only ONE CHURCH!!!

Eph 4:3-7
4 **There is one body **and **one **Spirit, just as you were called to the **one **hope that belongs to your call, 5 **one **Lord, **one **faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. "

Therefore, all who are validly baptized, Catholic (of any Rite), Orthodox, and Protestant are members of the One Body. Most members are “imperfectly joined” to the Body by reason of rejecting one or more essential doctrines.

The reason it is taught that “there is no salvation outside the Church” is that the Church is equated with the Body, and there is only one. All the saved are members of the One Body. It is comprised of all humanity to whom Christ is joined as bridegroom to bride. It includes Pagans, Muslims, Orthodox, and Protestants who have been made members of the ONE BODY by faith.

Please forgive my diversion from the topic. Now, back to the regularly scheduled theme…

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

I am not sure I understand your question correctly, but “all scriptures are inspired by God”. When Paul wrote this, he was speaking of the Alexandrian canon, which is what Catholics use today. Protestants have removed 7 books from this canon. (such a thing would have made Paul produce steam from his ears, since he quoted from them in his letters).

All of these books are considered part of the Divine Deposit of faith.

 

[DLC]

Please remember that the teaching authority are mere men and are fallible. We must have a guide to know truth that is not fallible. We have one, God the Holy spirit. He will guide us into all truth and not mere men who are capable of error John 16:13.

 

[guanophore]

I asked this question because I have witnessed different interpretations of what the Catechism says.

A just question that addresses a sad reality.

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,

You were misinformed. Tradition contains far more than doctrine represented in scripture. It is contained in liturgy, prayer, devotional practices, sacred writings, and many other areas.

I would like to know how Catholics account for these disagreements.

We realize that the persons who perceive that there is a contradiction are ignorant of the meaning of one or the other.

Also, because Protestants are slammed in threads for having even a slightly different interpretation.

I am not sure what “slammed” means. It woudl not be loving to encourage error.

Most Protesant differences are not “slight”. They are so vast as to severely wound and separate the One Body of Christ.

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.

This is a good point, and very illustrative of the nature of doctrinal unity. Individual Catholics, especially those poorly catechized, do have different understandings. However, what individual Catholics understand is entirely irrelevant unless it conforms to the Teachings of Jesus through the Apostles.

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.

Perhaps you can put the link to the post, so we can discuss? The dogmna is not “Roman” but Catholic. The Orthodox hold the vast majority of Catholic doctrine, and are in unity more so than any other of the separated brethren.

 

[Janet_S]

Why is the church build upon more than one thing? The Bible tell us that we can build no other foundation than that which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3:11.

For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:9-11

We Catholics agree with that. I’m not sure what you see as a contradiction. What Catholic on this thread said that the Church wasn’t built on the foundation of Christ?

God’s final revelation to the world was through His Son, Jesus.

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. Hebrews 1:1-3

God’s revelation was passed on from Jesus to the Apostles and is preserved to this day by the Church in Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

There is no contradiction with 1 Corinthians.

 

[guanophore]

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?

peace

I am not sure what Ginger sees as “disagreement”. I am assuming that she is not understanding the Teaching correctly.

However, Tradition IS here to support Scripture. In fact, there would be no NT if not for Sacred Tradition. The NT was written from Sacred Tradition, protected and promulgated by it, and ratified into canon thereby. They support one another.