L
Lampo
Guest
Oops…sorry about the repeated post…
- Status
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Peter is making no such claim here.
There is too much modernism here when reading and using the word Scripture. There is an erroneous assumption that when scripture is used it is referring only to what the Bible contains.
Let me make some points.
First: The Greek word used is graphe which has as a definition as “Document” or “Writing”
Second: When St Jerome translated it into the Latin, he used the latin word for 'Writing" which Scriptura
Third: When the Bible was translated into English, some words were stolen(some would say borrowed) from the Latin instead of doing a direct Greek to English translation to make certain words stand out and to mean something that is not neccessarily true.
Direct Greek to English translation of 2 Tim 3:16 takes on a different aspect:
Transliteral from Strongs
All writings diety breathed and useful for instruction for proof for a straightening up again for tutorage in equity
Fourth, when I print this post out, it will then be Scripture using the original definition and ignoring the modernization of the word.
Hope this helps :tiphat:
P
Pug
Guest
For those who haven’t noticed this CCC paragraph, it mentions something vague about Paul and the living tradition and it seems to mean after the experience on the road. I say it is vague because it does not say how he learned it, which seems to be a point of contention on the thread.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The apostles did not omit any essential elements from the scriptures. But they left the Church many elements that still had to be made explicit and definitive. What the Church has made explicit and definitive as deposited in Scripture and contained in Tradition is not a “new revelation”. Church doctrines and dogmas serve to bring what is revealed in Scripture to a clearer light and fuller understanding of the Christian faith.
Consider Christ’s teaching on divorce: “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt 5:31-32). The Catholic Church understands this passage as a denial by Jesus of the legitamacy of divorce itself. These words of Jesus taken in connection with Mk 10:11-12 and Lk 16:18 indicate that he absolutely forbade divorce. And thus the Catholic Church absolutely forbids divorce among her members and does not recognize the legitimacy of civil divorce. Many Protestant denominations interpret the words of our Lord otherwise and understand Matthew’s “exceptive clause” as a modification of the absolute prohibition. And so many Protestant denominations permit divorce under relative circumstances. Yet Jesus rejected the Old Testament commandment that assumed divorce was legitimate as long as it was legal.
“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away, and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (DV,4; 1Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13). Yet even if revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
"Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel…In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline (DV,7; Mt.28:19-20; Mk 16:15).
In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways: ‘orally’ “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it from the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (DV,7); ‘in writing’ “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing” (DV,7).
“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority” ( DV 7:1;St.Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3,3,1
G 7/1,848)…This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. 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” (DV 8:1). “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition…” (DV 8:3)
The Father’s self-communication, made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness” (DV 8:3; Col 3:16).
“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” (DV 9). Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20).
Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 66, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
O
Odell
Guest
Circumcision was essential.
Gen Ch 17
13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
The bible says it is an everlasting coventnant
What authority did the apostles have where they can change the covenant of God?
Did they go by scripture alone?
if they did then circumsision would still be an everlating covenant.
But it is not is it?
What did the apostles do did they consult scripture?
Again if they did, it would still be an everlasing covenant.
the first Church council in Acts 15 they said it is no longer the everlasting covenant that it once was.
in fact it is baptism that now replaces circumsision. but if the apostles resulted to scripture alone circumsision would still be a requarment.
G
Ginger2
Guest
First we disagree about what is meant by “the church”. But that’s another topic.
SS did exist before Luther.
Hippolytus of Rome (died A.D. 235) writes: ’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ (Against Noetus 9).
H
HailMary
Guest
May heresies existed before they actually came into practice. For example, the most common one in my example is a new form of Nestorianism, neo-Nestorianism, in which many Protestant faiths are guilty of by not calling Mary the Mother of God, which is actually a statement about Christ (refer to the History yourself if you don’t believe me).
Over and over again, Protestant like to quote the ECFs and they search NewAdvent for a single sentence that supports their claim and in some cases, it appears they can be successful. But the ECFs were not infalliable. Only the Church is. If you are going to try and support something with the ECFs, you must at least find some consensus, which you cannot do for Sola Scriptura.
L
Lampo
Guest
Yes, passages similar to this on behalf of the authority of Scripture can be culled from the Fathers without end. The Church Fathers clearly affirmed the material sufficiency of the Scriptures. In fact, one may be tempted to present these passages in support of the novel idea that the Church Fathers embraced sola scriptura. However, when one examines the faith of these very same Fathers one can find equally forceful and authoritative testimony on behalf of Tradition and a teaching Church. Therefore, when the Church Fathers speak on sufficiency and authority of Scripture they do so not in a vacuum but within the context of the Church and her inerrant Tradition. The Fathers never separated Scripture from the Church and her Tradition.
R
Reformed1
Guest
I just couldn’t let this one go.
Has your church infallibly defined who wrote each and every book of the scriptures? If yes, please back up your claim w/ sources.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
The answer is no. Next question.
M
mgrfin
Guest
What does the Catechism say? Totally irrelevant. The Catechism is a small volume in the Vatican library.
This is hardly an important issue, and has little to do with ‘personal interpretation’. How much the other Apostles taught Paul is speculation, and I agree, that Jesus didn’t show him a movie of his life.
Paul, our favorite Apostle, spent lots of time with disciples like Barnabas, Ananias, John, Peter and James. It is hard to believe that the time Paul spent with the disciples and the apostles they talked about the weather in Damascus. I am sure he talked with Mathew, Mark, Luke, Thomas, Jude, and their personal experience of Jesus. They talked of Jesus, and his teaching. One thing is for sure, Sacred Tradition was developing, along with the Scriptures. The full Deposit of Faith was being accomplished among the Faithful.
The issue is Sola Scriptura. Let’s stay on the point before we get on a tangent and cut off.
peace
R
Reformed1
Guest
Oh, you are so clever.
I don’t know if it has dawned on you or not, but this was decided during the apostolic age. You know, when there were apostles roamed the earth. The same guys who wrote the NT under the inspiration of God. THey solved this issue under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You try to make more out of sola scriptura than it actually is. Nice try.
Now, I’m sure there are some folks who do believe that sola scriptura was operative during the times of inscripturation but that isn’t what the majority opinion is. For example, you could ask was sola scriptura the rule while Adam was running around in the garden. Well, duh…there was no scriptura to be sola at that point.
The point of sola scriptura is that it defines that which is God breathed as our sole infallible authority. Not the pope or the magesterium who change w/ the wind.
R
Reformed1
Guest
Sacred tradition? Puhleeeze…
Can you define and verify (trace back to the apostles) exactly what traditions Paul taught to the church in Thessolonia?
You can’t, don’t waste your time.
You blindly accept what your church tells 'cuz since they are “infallible”, you can’t test what they teach and see if it’s true or not. VIVA VOCE, the cry of Rome.
R
Reformed1
Guest
Ah, but your fellow Catholic seems to think this is a vital point. Perhaps our salvation hangs on it and Catholic’s are in no better shape than anyone else.
Shocking how useful that infallible magesterium is huh?
H
HailMary
Guest
Yes, especially when it went declared that Contraception was immoral, like your Church once did before 1930, as well as all Protestant Churches believed.
R
Reformed1
Guest
You guys are really hung up on sex aren’t you?
Now, how many good Catholics are there in your pews that actually practice what your church teaches? Hypocritical…
G
Ginger2
Guest
The Catechism is irrelevant?
I am on topic. The dogma of the Catholic church vs the sufficiency of Scripture.
I am discussing the issue with Catholics and pointing out that what I have said is in harmony with the Catechism which declares Catholic dogma.
Therefore I must be right. If I am wrong, then so is the Catholic church which has declared the same thing I have said.
M
mgrfin
Guest
You misunderstand the doctrine of infallibility. The object of infallible statements has to be faith and morals. History (who the author is of a particular Book) is not a matter of infallibility.
What is inspired however is, so the Canon of the Bible is a matter of infallibility.
BTW, by ‘your church’, we understand the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.
peace
H
HailMary
Guest
Fallacy on many levels.
Appeal to common practice.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Appear to ridicule.
Ad Hominem.
Wow, you sure make a good argument!
Nice try to avoid the reality of this by trying to point the finger at sinning Catholics who use contraception.
R
Reformed1
Guest
No, I understand the errors your church teaches quite well.
Your fellow Catholic apparently thinks the authorship of Mark is a matter of grave importance, not me.
- Status