S
SyroMalankara
Guest
How did it do so in the 3rd Cent?
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
alwayswill, we agree on this. The Church assents the the Scriptures as being free from error in faith and morals. Plus it is also the bulk of divine revelation! Plus it is God Breathed and inspired! Plus we cannot contradict Scripture in belief or practice! We also know that the Church did not make Scripture this, but God has!
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Isn’t that the entire premise that we disagree on? Restating it does nothing to prove your assertion.
A
alwayswill
Guest
You may want to double check that.
I don’t think well-Catechized Catholics would ever say the Church granted authority to Scripture:
A
alwayswill
Guest
Your premise that someone misunderstanding an authority reduces the authority is false.
As proof: you don’t believe that about the authority of the Catholic Church.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Well, recognized the authority of which books constitute Scripture… to be specific. So how did the 3rd Cent Church do that?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
I never made such an assertion.
A
alwayswill
Guest
the same way the 1000BC believers recognized Scripture
the same way the 100AD church recognized it.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
which is?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Right… not sure where that came from.
J
jmcrae
Guest
What is your definition of “authority”?
To my way of thinking, an “authority” is someone who has the power to correct you if you act contrary to how they want you to act. For example, if I don’t do my work, my boss has the authority to fire me. If I disobey traffic regulations, the police have the authority to issue me a traffic ticket, and the courts have the authority to demand that I pay a fine.
What will the Bible do to you if you disobey it? If “nothing,” then it has no more authority than the family dog would have to fire me if I were not doing my work, or my child would have to punish me for breaking the law.
Sorry, can you explain what you mean by this?
There would be no point in it being Scripture if nobody but John ever saw it. The definition of Scripture is, that which is suitable to be read out in the Christian liturgy during the Proclamation of the Word of God, to instruct the Catechumens and the People of God. (Paraphrasing.)
In order to be recognized as Scripture, human beings must have both the authority and the ability to recognize them as such, without error (that is, infallibly.)
A
alwayswill
Guest
The Spirit of God working through His people
B
benhur
Guest
Not sure what you are misunderstanding. Yes Paul and the Lord made it authoritative. But because Paul was Catholic, and you have a copy of His letter, does not make you equal in revelational authority to His divine letter. That is all I was trying to say(The CC three legged stool, the idea that Tradition is of equal revelation to Writ is what I am trying to demonstrate is *not *the case thru my Corinthian quip.)
Do not think so. Perhaps you misunderstand SS. Here is a good site to explain what SS is and more importantly what it should not be.- modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19
Nothing stops free will/magisterium from wrongly dividing Writ. But I agree with you here. In fact, perhaps SS came about because reformers said the same thing about the disputed practices and their doctrines of their times and church.
Blessings
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Who are ‘His people’ and which people are not of Him?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Having a copy of Scripture is not what makes the Church or Tradition equal in standing. It is equal in standing because the Scriptures flow out of Tradition, and are recognized as having pre-eminence due to Inspiration. The teaching actually elevates Scripture out of being beneath the inspired Sacred Tradition it comes from, up to a level equal to it.
In fact, what you are stating defeats the argument of those that claim they can discern and interpret the Holy Scriptures outside the mind of the Church. St. Paul’s Apostolic authority is succeeded in Church authority (in a certain way to individual Bishops, and in another way collegially) not personal authority imparted every baptized individual.
Followed by others saying the same thing about them, using their methodology. So where does it end?
B
benhur
Guest
Hi clem,
Not sure if literal is the word. But I understand. For sure Catholics are more sensitive to tradition and their “church” as compared to P’s. Yet I would say they are not equaled in seeing Writ as God’s Love Letter, and not coming out apostles hair.
With the one big caveat, that began this whole mess , the capital “T” in tradition, that the holder/community of OT/apostloic /writ is equal in revelational authority.
Straw man . As if OT writ were what ? As if apostles and their writ are not one ? Especially thereafter. Your poke might be more real if this was more like OT times and the canon was still being written, and revelation not finished.
The community was guided by none other than the apostles, and OT writ. Then very shortly and during their shepherding, their Writ also. The foundation is then finished, revelation complete. Thereafter apostolic teaching as founded in Writ was the superlative norm within the rule of faith of the church. Tradition was not considered equal to an apostle as far as revelation, not yet . It was still a small “t”.
The church was and is equal in putting forth apostolic message with authority, as a pillar of truth (a pillar does not reveal “new”, and therefore is not equal to divine revelation, that is a distinct and different context, the pillar and what rests upon it ) Yes, equal to Peter and Paul in proclamation of same revelational gospel but not in new divine revelational source. Tradition/community does not equal Writ for revelational source, in my opinion.
Blessings
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Who is stating this? No Apostolic Church claims new revelation, only the authority to clarify and discern rightly. There is no new revelation. Hence the rejection of Muhammad, Joe Smith, Bahaullah, and the rest.
A
Abu
Guest
Since we have God’s written word, why so much emphasis on oral tradition?
Full Question
You place a lot of emphasis on oral tradition in the Catholic Church, but doesn’t the fact that we have a written Bible show this was the way we were intended to receive the word of God?
Answer
The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down.
**Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. **We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.
**In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face.”
The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition – a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.**
[My emphases].
catholic.com/quickquestions/since-we-have-gods-written-word-why-so-much-emphasis-on-oral-tradition
Full Question
You place a lot of emphasis on oral tradition in the Catholic Church, but doesn’t the fact that we have a written Bible show this was the way we were intended to receive the word of God?
Answer
The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down.
**Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. **We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.
**In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face.”
The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition – a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.**
[My emphases].
catholic.com/quickquestions/since-we-have-gods-written-word-why-so-much-emphasis-on-oral-tradition
S
SyCarl
Guest
If we cannot know what is Scripture without the authority of the Church, how do we know the Church has the authority it claims?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The Church’s authority comes from Christ, not the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures show us in written form what Christ already makes known to His community through the New Covenant.
- Status