Scripture vs Tradition

[guanophore]

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.

You are proceeding from an erroneous premise here.

The purpose of the Teaching of Jesus is to promulgate the Kingdom. That Teaching comes in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. While it is true that a correct understanding of the scriptures is one of the functions of Tradition, that is only part of it.

If that is not it’s purpose then Catholics on this forum need to stop using that definition to support their statements.

your effort to limit the nature of Sacred Tradition will not invalidate it’s use.

I am not saying that is the only purpose,

See above. It seems pretty clear that you did.

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.

Obviously, it is “understood” in many and various ways, most not with the clarification of Apostolic Teaching. Such understandings are not accurate.

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?

Sacred Tradition entirely makes clear the true meaning of the Scriptures. They were produced by that Tradition, for the followers of it, and were never meant to be separated from it.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

It sounds like you are saying trust no teachers–they can be wrong. Trust only yourself–you can never be wrong because you are guided by the Holy Spirit.

That doesn’t make sense to me. Why can you not be wrong–because you are guided by the Holy Spirit–and yet your teachers are not to be trusted? I’m sure your teachers think they’re led by the Holy Spirit too. Is the Holy Spirit leading only you?

 

[DLC]

What do you do when traditions and the Bible disagree with each other. How do know which the Bible or traditions are correct?

 

[DLC]

Why does tradition have to triumph the bible?

 

[Janet_S]

What do you do when traditions and the Bible disagree with each other. How do know which the Bible or traditions are correct?

They don’t contradict each other, and they aren’t in competition with each other. Tradition doesn’t “trump” Scripture.

Read this if you want to understand the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

p.s. Protestants have traditions too They just don’t like to admit it.

 

[mgrfin]

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

No, that is not what he said. You are including “Scriptures such as Mary’s sinlessness.”

No one quoted such passages to you.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger2;2982632:

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

No, that is not what he said. You are including “Scriptures such as Mary’s sinlessness.”

No one quoted such passages to you.
peace

The point I am making is that aside from the specific Scriptures that were listed as being infalibly defined, there are other Catholic dogmas based on other Scriptures.

In other words…There may not be specific verses about Mary that are infalibly defined, but the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness is based on certain Scriptures.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Ginger2:
The subject line is flawed thinking to begin with. Within the first 400 years of christianity there was no scripture only Tradition to follow.

Tradition exists before the written scripture. In fact the written scripture come from the Tradition in all of christianity.

Properly understood in context as intended by God leaves no room for conflicts or contradictions between the two. The preceived conflicts come into play when personal interpetation is used to define scripture.

 

[mgrfin]

The subject line is flawed thinking to begin with. Within the first 400 years of christianity there was no scripture only Tradition to follow.

Tradition exists before the written scripture. In fact the written scripture come from the Tradition in all of christianity.

Properly understood in context as intended by God leaves no room for conflicts or contradictions between the two. The preceived conflicts come into play when personal interpetation is used to define scripture.

I totally agree with you, Sean, that the subject line is flawed.

Originally, there was an attempt to posit in this thread that the Eastern Church was part of the Catholic Church, followed by a posit that there were scriptural quotes and traditions that were not accepted by the Eastern and Catholic Church. Since they did not agree then there was something wrong, leading to the final ‘conclusion’ that Tradition was flawed.

The whole thread fell apart because the Eastern Orthodox is not part of the Catholic Church, nor in communion with the Catholic Church.

Tradition is a source of Revelation in as much as Scripture is a source of Revelation, one unwritten and the other written down.

Tradition and Scripture are the sources of our beliefs, each the infallible Word of God.

We should be strong in our defense of Tradition. Our Christian friends may not accept Tradition, but there are many parts of Scripture that they do not accept either, for example, the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Penance, the primacy of Peter, etc.

“It’s not in the Bible” is a weak argument. Things are in the Bible but not necessarily accepted.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

The subject line is flawed thinking to begin with. Within the first 400 years of christianity there was no scripture only Tradition to follow.

I believe you are mistaken…

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’‘s writings as Scripture. "…as our beloved brother PAUL ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN TO HIM, ALSO WROTE TO YOU, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. (this was written about 66-67 A.D.)
Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture - (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church) Certainly the Gospel of
Matthew, also, He was one of the twelve. (Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD)
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us NOT TO THINK [of men] ABOVE THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 57 A.D.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.” Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D.

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin;2986927:

Ginger said:
In other words…There may not be specific verses about Mary that are infalibly defined, but the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness is based on certain Scriptures.

I am glad that you accept Mary’s sinlessness, but it is also based on Tradition, the unwritten, infallible word of God, given to the Church by the Apostles.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I believe you are mistaken…

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’‘s writings as Scripture. "…as our beloved brother PAUL ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN TO HIM, ALSO WROTE TO YOU, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. (this was written about 66-67 A.D.)
Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture - (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church) Certainly the Gospel of
Matthew, also, He was one of the twelve. (Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD)
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us NOT TO THINK [of men] ABOVE THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 57 A.D.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.” Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D.

I have a practical problem. There was no printing press. Nor were there monasteries of monks and scribes reproducing all these scriptures.

So, Paul didn’t have a copy of the books of the Old Testament. Nor did he have copies, and may never have read anything of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and probably had little association with all of them.

The letters he wrote were sent to various churches, and may or may not have been promulgated to all the other churches, and the apostles.

So, this ‘scripture’ thing you are talking about during the first century was a very loose thing. And with persecutions happening everywhere, these writings were not shipped around everywhere.

Must have been years and years before these books of the NT were collected. And as for OT books, the early Christians, after a while were not permitted in the Temple, and then the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So, 400 years is not a bad number. I would think a bit less, but not certainly in the life of Paul were these things collected as ‘Scripture’ as we know it.

peace

 

[guanophore]

mgrfin;2986927:

The point I am making is that aside from the specific Scriptures that were listed as being infalibly defined, there are other Catholic dogmas based on other Scriptures.

In other words…There may not be specific verses about Mary that are infalibly defined, but the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness is based on certain Scriptures.

This is not true. the dogma is based on the Teaching of the Church. So is the scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I have a practical problem. There was no printing press. Nor were there monasteries of monks and scribes reproducing all these scriptures.

So, Paul didn’t have a copy of the books of the Old Testament. Nor did he have copies,

I think Paul did have and carry some fragments.

and may never have read anything of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and probably had little association with all of them.

The letters he wrote were sent to various churches, and may or may not have been promulgated to all the other churches, and the apostles.

I think they were, though. Paul tells them to read the letter he wrote to Laodicea,and to have them read this one.

So, this ‘scripture’ thing you are talking about during the first century was a very loose thing. And with persecutions happening everywhere, these writings were not shipped around everywhere.

Secretely and painstakingly copied by candlelight!

Must have been years and years before these books of the NT were collected. And as for OT books, the early Christians, after a while were not permitted in the Temple, and then the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So, 400 years is not a bad number. I would think a bit less, but not certainly in the life of Paul were these things collected as ‘Scripture’ as we know it.

peace

We have some earlier canon lists, by the end of the second century.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I believe you are mistaken…

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’‘s writings as Scripture. "…as our beloved brother PAUL ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN TO HIM, ALSO WROTE TO YOU, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. (this was written about 66-67 A.D.)
Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture - (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church) Certainly the Gospel of
Matthew, also, He was one of the twelve. (Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD)
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us NOT TO THINK [of men] ABOVE THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 57 A.D.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.” Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D.

May I change one word…

The word “Bible” should have been used instead of scripture. Scripture did exist before the Catholic Church but it was called the Torah it was given to Gods Chosen people. Scripture before the bible was present in two forms oral and written each was equal to the other for learning and they co-existed one with the other. Either could stand on its own.

Still no canon of the bible without the Church’s Tradition. That is the history of the present day bible, like it or not.

God hasn’t changed that.

 

[lak611]

and may never have read anything of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and probably had little association with all of them.

We really do not know if Paul read any of Mark or Luke’s Gospels. Paul did associate with both Mark and Luke.

 

[Ginger2]

I have a practical problem. There was no printing press. Nor were there monasteries of monks and scribes reproducing all these scriptures.

So, Paul didn’t have a copy of the books of the Old Testament.

Are you suggesting people were still writing with chisel and stone in Jesus time?

Manuscripts were pain-stakingly hand copied. The oldest surviving manuscript of any part of the New Testament is a papyrus fragment. Scholars estimate that it was written about 125 AD. Egyptians invented this form of book. Sheets of papyrus were sewn together to form a book. (see codex)

If I had received a letter from Paul, and was asked to pass it around to the other churches, I would first make a copy of it to keep. I think it also shows God’s hand at work that ancient manuscripts that were copied by several different people remained consistent.

 

[Ginger2]

The dogma is based on the Teaching of the Church. So is the scripture.

I don’t think you meant to say that. The dogma of the Church is supposed to be based on God’s word - which is found in the Scriptures.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t think you meant to say that. The dogma of the Church is supposed to be based on God’s word - which is found in the Scriptures.

Actually Ginger, you have that backwards and he is correct.

This is sort of a “chicken or egg” point. Y’see, who, actually wrote the New Testament? The early church right? Not even all of it was written by the apostles because Luke and Mark were not, and they are pretty sure that Hebrews was not written by Paul though many n-Cs think so.

My point is that since that is the case, then the New Testament (and in fact the whole Bible, if you think of the “church” as having included the Jews who wrote the Old Testament) originated (at least 20-30 years later!) from the oral teachings of the church and not the other way round.

There is a very good Bible study available on on a free MP3 download from my friend John Martignoni here. that I will highly recommend to you.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I believe you are mistaken…

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’'s writings as Scripture. "…as our beloved brother PAUL ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM GIVEN TO HIM, ALSO WROTE TO YOU, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. (this was written about 66-67 A.D.) Study the use of the word scripture and how it relates to the usage of the day. Did it mean bible canon as we see it today or was it something else.

Since Peter considered Paul’‘s writings as Scripture, I should think Peter’'s writings were also considered Scripture - (You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church) Certainly the Gospel of
Matthew, also, He was one of the twelve. (Matthew was written between 42 -50 AD) Assuming your correct on the first count of course.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us NOT TO THINK [of men] ABOVE THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 57 A.D. Which book of the bible did Paul transferred himself to Apollos? Paul is transfering his authority to another bishop of the Catholic Church, Apollos. Prove this was intended to be the bible.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.” Acts 3:16-17 THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 63 A.D. In says profitable, not required in righteousness. Again does it refer to the new testament.