Yes, I agree with everything youâve written. I would only add that the Tradition existed before a single word of the New Testament was written.Deposit of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Look at your Catechism -scripture is quoted constantly. scripture and tTradition work hand in Hand - they DO NOT WORK against each other-ever!:
What tradition does your church hold to that isnât found in the scriptures?
The answer to that question simply doesnât matter to me. Whether found in scripture explicitly, implicitly or not at all, all the teachings of the Church are true and from God. The particular path of Godâs revelations are not nearly as important as the revelations themselves.
The thing is that Catholics do believe that Scripture must be taken in context. But Catholics do not believe in the validity of the private interpretation of Scripture by lone individuals against the light of Apostolic Tradition and outside the apostolic teaching authority of the Church: Magisterium. If a divided Protestantism isnât a fine example of what happens by taking Scripture out of context, then I donât know what is.
Where in your KJV Bible does it say âStop worshipping on the Sabbath (Saturday) and start to go to Church on Sundayâ? Did the Protestants start this tradition or did they take The Catholic Churchâs traditional lead and copy it?
It is a point of faith, clearly formulated at the 14th Ecumenical Council of Lyons and at the 17th Ecumenical Council of Florence and expounded in detail by Pope Benedict XII in âBenedictus Deusâ, that the souls of the faithful departed, that is to say, all who have left this world in the state of grace to be admitted into heaven, need not wait until the last day. Actually the souls of the saints of the Old Testament had been obliged to wait a long time for admission, because heaven was closed on account of original sin, so that no one could enter.I certainly appreciate your candor. It is the object of this forum to learn and it works both ways. I have learned a great deal and am still anxious to learn.
My personal opinion is that the Bible teaches that everyone who has died is in the ground awaiting the resurrection. No one has gone to heaven, as the Scriptures tell us. If they have, then why did Christ say He could raise up David? If we are in heaven when we die, then why do we need a resurrection, since we are already promised a new body?
False. Jerome did not reject them. The disparaging attitude of St. Jerome, the great ancient scripturist, in his Prologus galeatus (48:556) may be laid to his exaggerated enthusiasm for the Hebrew text, and to the pronounced Jewish influences connected with his earlier biblical studies.
It is not so much that the Traditions cannot be seen reflected in the scripture as it is how the scripture is understood. Matters like the Immaculate Conception, the Primacy of Peter, the Apostolic Succession can all be found in Scripture, but those wh reject the Sacred Tradition interpret the scriptures differently, resulting in different doctrines.
I am reminded of the quote given by St Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church, from the time of the Reformation, regarding the Assumption of Mary into heaven:
Why? The Church had to know what the teachings of the Faith were, before it could decide what to include in the Scriptures. And even before writing them down. Do you think that St. Paul was reading his Epistles to find out what to teach in all those cities? No - he received it from the Oral Tradition, directly from the Apostles, just as we do today.
Sure. Why not? The Tradition came first, and the Scriptures are a subset of the Tradition. They didnât (and couldnât) write everything down.
Thatâs true, but we also wouldnât have either one without the Church.
I quoted what I thought was relevant, and didnât ignore the rest, thank you. But letâs look at 17:9. It doesnât say it wasnât a vision of them in heaven. It doesnât say it was a vision of them on/buried in the earth. It merely says a vision. So if it were a vision of them dead in the ground, why was the vision of them conversing with Jesus? Sorry to say that I donât read greek, which might give us a better idea of what was meant.
I agree with this as a practicing Catholic.
COLOR=âBlueâ]Please be so kind as to give me a reference where I can read this in Jeromeâs writings. Thank you!/COLOR
I believe you meant eisegesis. Actually my method is exegetical and my hermenuetics is the basis for my stage of truth.I quoted what I thought was relevant, and didnât ignore the rest, thank you. But letâs look at 17:9. It doesnât say it wasnât a vision of them in heaven. It doesnât say it was a vision of them on/buried in the earth. It merely says a vision. So if it were a vision of them dead in the ground, why was the vision of them conversing with Jesus? Sorry to say that I donât read greek, which might give us a better idea of what was meant.
You, friend, are guilty of isagesis, reading into this pericope what you will in order to support your assertion that Jesus is the only one in heaven.
OS, forgive me if I am mistaken, but I think that the principals of hermeneutics, as one of just many approaches to exegesis (and not an objective method itself rather an art) requires focusing the perspective to the understandings of somebody elseâs point of view within a circle of concern; rather than centering the stage around the approach.
So you agree that Scripture is essential for catholic doctrine?
I disagree. The Jews already knew what the OT canon was by the time of Christ.
You do realize that you are speculating that she was âassumed by the Power of her Divine Sonâ. There is no evidence in Scripture for this claim.This is a good point, and true, of course. But it also must be noted that Mary did not ascend either. She is a creature, and could not, of her own power, go into heaven. She was assumed by the Power of her Divine Son, who, being a good Jewish boy, loved his mother!