chat with a catholic

[Douay]

As a catholic what do you hold the highest: The Church doctrine the bible or tradition?

It was tradition that gave the Church leaders authority to ratify the Bible, they decided which books were in and which were out. There are only one or two minor practises in the Chuch which have come down directly from tradition and nowhere else. So, except for the approval of the Bible tradition is not very important today, it was in the first 3 or 4 hundred years, though. I suppose one could say that Church doctrine is what we are bound by and is the most important to a Catholic today. If you read the Baltimore Catechism you will see Bible verses that support every Catholic teaching. So really the doctrine comes straight out of the Bible and is just put into everyday situations.

That's a tricky question because they are all tied together.

Douay

[Katholish]

Irene,

As a catholic what do you hold the highest

The Church doctrine the bible or tradition?

I assume that we mean the highest authority. It is implied in your question, but I wanted to clarify for any readers.

Let me start off by saying that I do not hold (nor does the Catholic Church) that either Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium (The Church's teaching authority which declares doctrine) are above the Sacred Scriptures in authority.

The written word of God in the form of Sacred Scripture is obviously Divinely inspired and inerrant, not only in matters of Faith and Morals, but entirely. (However, the human authors retain true authorship as well, hence we do not mean stylistic perfection necessarily.)

I would normally summarize Church documents, but in this case, there is an authoritative declaration by the Catholic Church as to what she holds in this area. This document is called Dei Verbum (the Word of God) and was one of the two dogmatic constitutions produced by the Second Vatican Council. Here is chapter 10 which explains clearly what I would have said anyway.

10. 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)

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.

Thus I hold with the Church that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, both being the Word of God, have equal authority, and that the Church, through the Magisterium authentically interprets them.

What is necessarily implied in this belief is that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are incapable of contradicting the Sacred Scriptures.

[Katholish]

Irene,

When I went I was not allowed to read the bible unless I went the the father and told him what I had read and he would tell me what it meant. I do not know if that is still true or not but at one time it was...

As far as I know, in no time in the entire history of the Church has it been standard practice to prohibit the reading of Sacred Scripture outside of instruction.

I cannot speak to your specific situation, but it is certainly not impossible that a priest would give such a prohibition, though I doubt that there would be many cases when it would be done canonically (legally according to the Church's law). The Church has always encouraged frequent reading of the Sacred Scriptures, and in the past for those that could not read, even vast memorization.

It is true that the availability of the Scriptures had been gravely limited to all before the advent of the printing press, though it is also true that many in the Middle Ages could not read at all, so it was not as great an issue, for the daily recitations of parts of the Bible at daily Mass served to give a far knowledge of the Sacred texts.

The first book ever printed was of course the Catholic Bible though, and today, no Catholic in good conscience could be without one, and there are no prohibitions on reading it I can assure you. I myself own at least nine copies.

[Guest wilburnh]

Thus I hold with the Church that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, both being the Word of God, have equal authority, and that the Church, through the Magisterium authentically interprets them.

Bold emphasis mine.

I see the wisdom in letting an individual/council decide the traditions and search as they are supposedly more learned than the common man; however, once we get away from the scriptures and start putting equal status on any other document/tradition, we depart from the area of divine inspiration and start dabbling with the errancy of man. From the time I was a child, I was always encouraged to take everything I was taught with a grain of salt and to go study the supposed truths myself. While I'm sure you do this, the statements made that you consider the Church's tradition on equal footing with the Scripture seems to point to the fact that in at least one instance, you do not.

While I do not care if I offend anyone if the truth is being spoken, I don't wish anyone to needlessly be offended. So, if I've misunderstood your intent, please overlook any offense you may feel and inform me otherwise. God bless

Calvin

[Katholish]

Calvin,

Your post reminded me that perhaps I should further define exactly what is meant by Divine/Sacred Tradition. There are two different kinds of traditions, those that have a lower case "t" and those that Catholics capitalize. When we say Tradition (with a capital "T") we mean something very specific with a technical definition, just as when the both of us say "Scripture" we mean something technical, and not all writings whatsoever.

Sacred Traditions are the unwriten oral yet inspired teachings of Christ and the Apostles just as the New Testament is the writen teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Sacred Tradition does not refer to such "traditions" as fasting for 40 days in Lent, priestly celibacy, or not eating meat on Fridays. Those are traditions with a lower case "T".

An Example of Sacred Tradition is the Canon of Scripture, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, though that is not to say that those doctrines only have Sacred Tradition as their source.

[Arthur Durnan]

Thanx for your good query. If you want something that changes constantly and implements new tenets and obligations fairly frequently, then you'll choose the Roman Catholic church & its papacy. However if you're looking for something that is stable, tested, tried and true (without addition or subtraction), you'll surely spend a few moments in the Holy Bible which is "able to make thee wise unto salvation." For example, in ANY version, check out St. John 3:1-16, then John 14:1-6. Powerful truth for all of us today, yes?

GOD BLESS YOU IN YOUR QUEST!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Katholish]

Although I am fairly certain that was the type of post that Irene was trying to avoid, I thought it fitting to address the underlying point.

Does Catholic Doctrine change?

The answer is no. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and the Magisterium can only declare doctrine that is found in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition which ended with the death of John and Scripture which essentially ended at the same time.) The Church can further clarify something that had not been understood in such detail in the Apostolic age, but the doctrine must have its foundation in those sources. For instance, the fact that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father is a doctrine of the Church which was not understood to that degree of technical understanding, yet the teaching is perfectly founded in the Scriptures. Thus our understand of doctrine may deepen, but it cannot essentially change.

[serotta]

Katholish,

You say "Sacred Traditions are the unwriten oral yet inspired teachings of Christ and the Apostles just as the New Testament is the writen teachings of Christ and the Apostles."

And then you list the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption as Sacred Traditions. Can you explain the source of these Traditions? Didn't the Assumption only become a Tradition in 1950?

[IreneM]

OK FOLKS THIS IS A FRIENDLY DISCUSSION

LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY

NO JUDGEMENTS JUST SHARING BELEIEFS

IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE INTENT OF THIS THEN PLEASE DON'T POST

I just want a dialog on beliefs not a broo ha ha please!!!!

In Christ

IreneM

[Anne]

I wanted to ask Kath, and this is an honest question, and no insult is intended.

How does the members of the Roman Catholic believe they will enter Heaven?

Anne