The assumption of Mary

[1962Missal]

Kinsman:

You keep missing the point. The Trinity IS explicitly taught in the Bible. That’s how we get the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s not a “tradition” or an extrabiblical idea formed in the minds of men centuries later. In the Bible the Father is presented as God, the Son is presented as God, and the Holy Spirity is presented as God. The Bible teaches three distinct Persons, but only one God. The “word” Trinity is not used in the Bible but it is explicitly taught.

That, however, is not at all the case regarding the “Assumption of Mary.” Not only her “Assumption” but her so-called “Immaculate Conception,” her “sinless life” and her position in heaven as “Queen.” These are ALL extrabiblical doctrines formed from in the minds of men, not God. Even “Purgatory” is an extrabiblical doctrine.

Ultimately, whether the Assumption or Immaculate Conception is taught in Sacred Scripture is begging the question. What is more important is, are they true teachings? You do not address the fact that not all revealed truth is contained within the pages of the Bible. See lengthy cut and paste job, above.

Justin

 

[Little_Mary]

Shari:

Not to be rude, but it seems to me that Homer starts these threads and then can’t handle the answers so leaves. Although I am enjoying the answers and am learning a lot. Thanks for the threads you start Homer they are great. Also there was someone who said everyone was dogpiling on Homer, I just wanted to make a statement. This is not the first thread Homer has started like this, where he ups and leaves and also he really doesn’t want answers(just my opinion). It seems he just likes to try and start trouble, the little instigator . But it’s not working.

Shari, I agree. You hit the nail on the head when you said that he really doesn’t want answers. That is my opinion as well. However, I do join you in thanking him because we all learn a lot a become more deeply rooted in our faith. And you’re right, if he wants trouble, he must be terribly disappointed.

 

[yochumjy]

Kinsman:

That, however, is not at all the case regarding the “Assumption of Mary.” Not only her “Assumption” but her so-called “Immaculate Conception,” her “sinless life” and her position in heaven as “Queen.” These are ALL extrabiblical doctrines formed from in the minds of men, not God. Even “Purgatory” is an extrabiblical doctrine.

The sinless life is not explicitly talked about but is implied.

Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; "

The offspring in this verse is Jesus, no one else could there be further distance between man and the snake (devil); therefore, the woman would be Mary. Enmity is “positive, active, and typically mutual hatred”, The opposition between Jesus (offspring) and the devil’s (snake’s) is complete, he was sinless as a man on earth (and obviously remains so ) and is opposed in every way to the devil. This same sentance is applied to the woman, whose offspring is Jesus, who is Mary. Therefore, Mary is sinless.

Hope this helps

John

 

[Sherlock]

One question to ask those of you here: how do we know, as Homer says, that the Gospel of John was written about 90 AD? I might be misremembering, but I seem to recall Jimmy Akin positing that the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Since that destruction was prophesied, it was odd that this prophecy fulfillment wasn’t mentioned—one reason it wasn’t was because it hadn’t happened yet.

Or am I suffering from a faulty memory?

 

[Kinsman]

yochumjy:

The sinless life is not explicitly talked about but is implied. Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; "

WOW… this can be compared to a starving man desperately searching the empty cupboards for food, and finding a bread crumb rationalizes in his own mind that he’s encountered a meal. Gen. 3:15 speaks to the virgin birth, referencing the peculiar term (lit.) “seed of the woman,” but not at all to the sinlessness Mary. That’s a real stretch! And that kind of backward logic causes great problems if we were to follow it out to its logical conclusions.

Tieing the notion of the sinlessness of Mary to the subject at hand, the Assumption: In the 6th cen. the legend first stated that after Mary’s death her soul was transported to heaven by Christ and His angels in the presence of all His apostles; and on the following morning her body was translated up on a cloud and there united with her soul. The legend was subsequently embellished by claiming that this spectacle was not only witnessed by angels and apostles, but also the patriarchs and no less than Adam and Eve themselves.

Now put your thinking cap on. According to Roman doctrine Mary was free from original sin, nor did she sin during her earthly life. And since death is an immediate consequence of sin (Rom. 5:12), she herself would not have been subject to physical death. So now realizing this, recent claim is that she never did taste of physical death but was taken up alive, like Enoch and Elijah. So the story keeps changing and building! I don’t doubt that we’ve not yet heard the end of this story.

But this is not the stuff that a true Christian faith is built upon or should rest in. That’s why the Reformers wanted the church of Rome to get back to a Biblically based faith. A faith that rests fully and only on the Word of God and what He has revealed as “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Unlike the pagan religions (and today’s cults), a faith rooted in history with eyewitness accounts of the actual events. There’s no need for fabricated stories when God has provided us with the content of salvation faith in His written, inerrant Word. What He had inspired to be written is more than sufficient for our faith and practice of it (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

2PET. 1:16 “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”

1JO. 1:1-4 “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life…”

 

[Kinsman]

1962Missal:

Ultimately, whether the Assumption or Immaculate Conception is taught in Sacred Scripture is begging the question. What is more important is, are they true teachings? You do not address the fact that not all revealed truth is contained within the pages of the Bible. See lengthy cut and paste job, above.Justin

Whether or not the Assumption is taught in Scripture is not “begging” any question." The question is, can such a story hold up to scrutiny? The truth is, it can not.

You provided many quotes from Christian writers concerning “traditions.” But these in no way can conclude that the story regarding the Assumption of Mary is true. Many of those you quote speak of holding to Apostolic “traditions.” Yet the story of the Assumption was virtually unknown after the first few centuries that followed the Apostolic age. You can be sure if such a thing had actually taken place word by writing would have swiftly circulated around to all the churches in the Empire by those who were eyewitenesses to the glorious event.

But the story wasn’t conjured up until the late 4th century and then with fanciful narration (see my previous post). It wasn’t even defined as an article of faith by Rome until 1950 by Pope Pius XII. Yet, in 1740 Benedict XIV declared that this tradition is not of such a kind as to be sufficient for the elevation to the rank of an article of faith (Opera, Vol. X, p. 400, ed. 1751). Go figure!!

 

[Kinsman]

_Christopher_:

True, but it doesnt matter much…the Bible itself says not everything is in the Bible.

No need to shug!

The Bible does claim to provide everything we need for a Godly life and saving faith:

“All Scripture is inspired (lit. God-breated) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3: 16-17).

And yes, “all Scripture” does include the New Testament, as well. The Holy Spirit who is God, therefore omniscient, knew very well He was inspiring the N.T. writings as Scripture, as well.

Have a good day out there…

 

[kwitz]

Kinsman:

No need to shug!

The Bible does claim to provide everything we need for a Godly life and saving faith:

“All Scripture is inspired (lit. God-breated) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3: 16-17).

And yes, “all Scripture” does include the New Testament, as well. The Holy Spirit who is God, therefore omniscient, knew very well He was inspiring the N.T. writings as Scripture, as well.

Have a good day out there…

I’ve never understood this passage to be proof of the sufficiency of scripture. All Scripture absolutely does not equal ONLY Scripture.

Kris

 

[jimmy]

How do you know it was unknown? Did you live in the first couple centuries?

“All Scripture is inspired (lit. God-breated) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3: 16-17).

Profitable only means that it can help. It does not mean that it contains everything.

If you accept apostolic tradition then you accept the immaculate conception and the assumption.
Why do you accept only parts of the bible and reject others, like Jesus giving the keys of heaven to Peter or apostolic tradition or the eucharist. If you are goin to accept part of the bible as the inspired word of God you must accept it all. Jesus told the rich man to give up everything he had and follow him. Not to just giveup half.

 

[Little_Mary]

:twocents: …

“profitable”-affording profits; yielding advantageous returns or results.

does not equal “sufficient” - enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end. (definitions from Webster’s dictionary)

And yes, you must accept the entire bible, not just parts and pieces. “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”

If you were in a play, could you just study the script (no rehearsals) and then show up on opening night? When you learned to drive a car, did you just study the operator’s manual then get behind the wheel? Did someone teach you how to cook or were you born knowing what “julienne” and “par-boil” mean? How much does a physician learn outside of the classroom? (I don’t care if I’m dying, show it to me in the medical textbook before you lay a hand on me)

When Jesus gave Peter the keys, and said “…upon this rock I will build my church…” or each time Jesus taught them something, they didn’t then just turn around and walk away until they met again for the recording of the next bible passage. Peter and the other apostles, must have had many questions at every turn. Just like an actor in a play, or a student driver, or a beginner cook might have questions that aren’t addressed in the script, manual, or cookbook. And Jesus answered them, much like a directors, driving instructor or chef,…they didn’t stop and say oh let’s sit down and write all this down so it’s all in the bible because if it’s not in the bible then people don’t have to listen to it so if we don’t get it in the bible then it’s too late …how ridiculous is that? Jesus taught these men and then told them to go out and teach. He didn’t tell them to write a book and then tell them to condemn anyone who did not read it and ONLY it. No, the book, the Good Book, inspired by the Holy Spirit and profitable for teaching, not sufficient, but profitable, came much later.

So, the traditions and teachings of the Catholic church are not whimsically made up as we go along. They are lessons that were taught, by Jesus himself to his apostles and handed down generation by generation to the present day. But they came directly from Jesus-how special is that?. That makes them sacred and we cherish them.

So you have a problem with the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary? Well, take an historical perspective - spend a little time with how they came about and why. This woman carried Christ - *Christ, our Lord and Saviour - *in her womb, bore Him, nursed Him, nurtured and cared for Him, how intimate is that? How close they must have been. Who else on earth was that close to Jesus? No one. Mary HAD to have been sinless to care and love for Jesus - God - in such a way.

 

[Kinsman]

kwitz:

I’ve never understood this passage to be proof of the sufficiency of scripture. All Scripture absolutely does not equal ONLY Scripture. Kris

Jude 3 says the faith was once for all delivered to the saints. That which was once for all delivered was written down as Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The word inspired in this passage is, theopneustos, that’s Greek for “God-breathed.”

Salvation faith has content and that content has been provided by God Himself once for all in writing, contained in the New Testament, backed up by the Old. Nothing had to be added to it in subsequent centuries. Especially stories like the Assumption of Mary that have no historical proof, no eyewitnesses and absolutely no Apostolic support.

This challenging of God’s Word goes all the way back to the Garden when Satan tempted Eve by saying, *"Indeed, has God said…? *(Gen. 3:1). Satan challenged it and Eve embellished it, disobeyed it, as did Adam, and you see the mess it put this world in. Now God has provided us with what we need to know and believe through His written Word. From the beginning it’s been about obeying GOD’S WORD. Men have always tried to add to it in order to distort its message. His Word exalts Jesus Christ and Him ALONE.

Peter writes:

"All flesh is like grass,
And all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
And the flower falls off,
But the word of the Lord abides forever"
*And this is the word that was preached to you."
*(1 Pet. 1:24-25).

 

[1962Missal]

The Bible does not teach that the Creator of this world came into this world in order to gain a mother from His own creation, and then take her back with Him that He might exalt her in heaven. Such an idea is well rooted in pagan religions and the fables surrounding their finite gods. But no hint of this idea is found in God’s written Word which reveals the only true, infinite God and creator of this universe and His redemptive purposes for mankind.

No but the Bible does teach that God has assumed others into heaven and, as Christians, we believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead at either the “rapture” or the Last Judgement (depending on one’s orthodoxy or lack thereof). Certainly, therefore, it is not inconsistent with the Biblical understanding of God’s interaction with Man to believe in the Assumption of Mary.

Oh, and as for the “it is a pagan corruption” cliche, we really don’t want to get into numerous (but accidental) resemblances between Christianity and, say, Mithraism, do we?

Others here claim the bodily assumption of Mary should be believed because it’s tradition and Paul taught traditions were to be held to (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Tim. 2:15). But Paul, in context, was referring to what he orally taught them concerning Christ and the faith while in their presence on his previous missionary journeys. This in no way gives credence to a doctrine developed by men born long after its claimed event.

Your argument that the doctrine was developed late is an argument from silence—the weakest sort. The most that we can say for sure is that we have no written eyewitness testimony to the Assumption in our possession now. It is speculation to say that it never existed.

Mary was an obedient vessel that the Son might be born into this world as a Man (the God-Man, Jesus Christ), to be a substitutionary sacrifice for man’s sins.

I find it curious that you use that particular terminology. “She who bore God the son into the world as a man” can be reduced to “God-bearer”-- in Greek: Theotokos, or, Mother of God.

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

The reason she is called blessed amongst women is because only ONE woman born of Adam could ever become the chosen vessel for the Divine to enter humanity. For this reason she is called “highly favored,” the meaning of “full of grace” (grace means "favor). Bottom line, Scripture does not give her honor beyond the highly unique “favor” of being this chosen vessel. The desire of every orthodox, Jewish woman up to the time of His birth. That’s no small honor, but that honor is restricted.

No , Jewish women up to that time had no desire, nor could they have ever conceived, of giving birth to YHWH incarnate. That honor is the greatest ever given to a human person.

One would have to read that fully developed doctrine [the assumption] into a passage (which is called eisegesis), but one could not get that doctrine from that passage (exegesis)

. You misunderstand the way the Church derives Her teaching. If a doctrine may not be derived from Scripture by exegesis, that does not mean that it was not handed on by the apostles. Certainly, we look to the Scriptures to testify to a teaching, lend it support, but we recognize that some teachings are weakly attested to by the Scriptures. We do not “read into” the Scriptures because we are content that Sacred Tradition does not contradict them.—and that is enough.

[A Catholic] is required to believe the words of men not even born at the time that event was suppose to have occured. Like I said, what makes the Christian faith completely unique is that it is based on historical facts and the Word of God Almighty

No, a Catholic is required to believe the official teaching of the Church, which has received and handed on, without addition or subtraction, that which was once for all delivered by the Apostles.

Justin

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

The Bible does claim to provide everything we need for a Godly life and saving faith:

“All Scripture is inspired (lit. God-breated) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3: 16-17).

Kinsman was kind enough to supply us with the definition of eisegesis in one of his earlier posts (#59):

Kinsman:

One would have to read that fully developed doctrine into a passage (which is called eisegesis), but one could not get that doctrine from that passage (exegesis).

Now he was gracious enough to supply us with a concrete example using 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. Notice that in post #85 Kinsman referenced this very passage and stated that the Scriptures are “sufficient” even though the word is not used here by Paul. Paul describes the Scriptures as both “God-breathed” and “profitable” for the means mentioned. [Side note: Only three times in Scripture is God’s breath referenced. The other two occurrences are at Genesis 2:7 and John 20:22. These are very important texts which we will leave for another time.] “Profitable” by no means carries the definition or weight of “sufficient.” As a matter of fact, the word sufficient is never used of Scripture. In regards to salvation, only God’s grace is defined as sufficient (2 Corinthians 9:8; 12:9). This is why the Church rejects the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura but fought tooth and nail against Pelagius who rejected Sola Gratia in the early Church.

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

The word “profitable” actually implies that there are other elements that are needed to achieve the end result. For example, if we say water is profitable for a healthy body, we cannot therefore say that water is sufficient for a healthy body. Indeed it is profitable, but the body also needs nourishment, exercise, oxygen, etc. to be healthy. Paul, or I should say the Holy Spirit, is teaching that Scripture is one of the necessary components needed so that “the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Paul earlier in the same epistle mentions that sanctity also equips for every good work (2 Timothy 2:21) as does grace (2 Corinthians 9:8). In his previous epistle to Timothy, Paul tells him of further requirements, “but as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:11-14). Therefore Paul is teaching that Scripture, sanctity, and grace all help to make the “man of God” adequate, equipped for every good work. Adding to this, James states that endurance makes one “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:4). These are far from synonymous with

Kinsman:

The Bible does claim to provide everything we need for a Godly life and saving faith

Another problem with Kinsman’s interpretation (or rather eisegesis) is that the passage was written directly to Timothy. Timothy is the proper recipient of Paul’s letter (it’s called Timothy for a reason). Proper exegesis requires that we acknowledge this truth. In fact, in the New Testament, only Timothy is called a “man of God.” In the Old Testament, the term “man of God” was used strictly of God’s prophets and ministers and not of the ordinary or general believer (Deuteronomy 33:1; Joshua 14:6; 1 Chronicles 23:14; 2 Chronicles 8:14; 30:16; Nehemiah 12:24, 36; Ezra 3:2; 1 Samuel 9:6-10; 2 Kings 1:9-13; 4:7-9, 21-27, 40-42; 5:8, 14-15; 13:19; etc.). The only time “men of God” (plural) is used in the New Testament it refers to the Old Testament prophets (2 Peter 1:20-21). Timothy was a bishop that was divinely appointed as teacher over a congregation (1 Timothy 1:18; 4:6-16). Since these epistles to Timothy refer to Church authorities in context, by extension, they would apply to the Church’s ministers that are to teach the laity in regards to Scripture.

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

The second letter from Peter to the Jewish Christians of the Dispersion (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 3:1) explains well that Scripture is not to be privately interpreted (2 Peter 1:19-21). The reason given is that Scripture did not originate with man thus cannot be interpreted only through man. Scripture came through the Holy Spirit therefore it must be interpreted through the Holy Spirit. Notice also that the speech of the men of God was inspired as well and not only their writings (“moved by the Holy Spirit spoke”). Peter closes his letter by reminding us that those who are “untaught” and “unstable” twist the words of Paul as well as the other Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). The Greek word for “untaught” refers to those who have not learned the faith first before attempting to interpret Scripture. This would also apply to those that don’t know the real faith at all.

Oddly, Kinsman also ignores the verses prior to Timothy 3:16. Paul states in verse 3:14-15: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” Paul acknowledges that Timothy receives his knowledge from two sources, Scripture and what has been handed down to him. This is why Paul refers to Scripture as “profitable.”

As to the quote from Jude in regards to the faith that was delivered once for all, please note that Kinsman seems to be reading ‘was written once for all’ into the text. This again is eisegesis:

Kinsman:

One would have to read that fully developed doctrine into a passage (which is called eisegesis), but one could not get that doctrine from that passage (exegesis).

The inspired text does not say

Kinsman:

That which was once for all delivered was written down as Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Jude is silent in regards to the mode of transmission of the Faith.

 

[Mathetes007]

Additionally, citing the Genesis story does nothing for Kinsman’s insistence that everything was written down. Adam had no Scripture at the time. God’s word was oral Tradition then, but it was as binding as the written word. I hope Kinsman doesn’t believe that God only spoke to Adam the few words that were eventually recorded. Yet, all God’s words were binding on Adam regardless if they were written down or not. Kinsman seems to find Sola Scriptura everywhere he looks. I think he put it best:

Kinsman:

WOW… this can be compared to a starving man desperately searching the empty cupboards for food, and finding a bread crumb rationalizes in his own mind that he’s encountered a meal.

Then Kinsman cites Peter (1 Peter 1:24-25) even though he explicitly refers to the word that is “preached” not written. Kinsman is obviously not immune from the charges he brings against others.

I have to apologize to Kinsman but I have not had the time to sit down and answer the critiques and questions he has levied against the Faith. Please allow me a week or so to answer all the questions he posed above in his previous posts. Have a good night and may God bestow His grace and Spirit on Kinsman.

 

[Kinsman]

Mathetes007:

Additionally, citing the Genesis story does nothing for Kinsman’s insistence that everything was written down. Adam had no Scripture at the time. God’s word was oral Tradition then, but it was as binding as the written word. I hope Kinsman doesn’t believe that God only spoke to Adam the few words that were eventually recorded. Yet, all God’s words were binding on Adam regardless if they were written down or not

We’re talking valid accounts here. The assumption of Mary has no eyewitnesses, no Apostolic support and no historical validity. Who came up with the story in the first place? What we have handed down to us in Holy Writ (the Bible) is not based on popular vote or opinion, or the fertile imaginations of men. It is demonstratated internally and externally to be the inspired, written Word of God. Do you not believe that it’s the written Word of God?

Your error lies in trying to constantly devalue His Word and exalt your so-called traditions. The account of Adam and Eve is part of Scripture, its not “tradition.” Certainly Christ and the Apostles said things that were not recorded in Scripture; and if we had certain knowledge of such unrecorded instruction it would be binding and of equal authority as Scripture. *But we have NO knowledge of those oral sayings *and therefore it must be concluded they were never divinely intended to be a part of the premanent rule of the faith as recorded in Scripture. It is impossible to learn what they were.

But God has given us a permenant record in ALL of Scripture through the work of divine inspiration as to what is binding for the rule of practice and salvation faith for the believer. It is silly to think some story fabricated 3-4 hundred years later, witnessed by no one, immediately rejected by many and then eventually accepted by some should hold the same authority as Scripture. This is the stuff from which cults are formed. It works to destroy the validity and uniqueness of the Christian faith, once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Argue all you want…it’s not going to MAKE your “traditon” true! We don’t live in the Middle Ages anymore.

 

[1962Missal]

Your claim that the Church Christ formed was “church centered” from the beginning is more rooted in propaganda than fact. Christ Himself proves your theory wrong: "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:27; cf. vs. 32) "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:45). And all the New Testament writers quoted freely from the Old Testament prophets to back up their message. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 twice repeats the phrase, "according to the Scriptures."

You are creating a false dichotomy here. All your quotes show is that Sacred Scripture is authoritative. If we admit that Scripture is authoritative, we do not, thereby, exclude other authorities. Nor do multiple authorities stand in competition with each other. This is what the Church has to say:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

continued

 

[1962Missal]

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Justin