[Akoue]

In other words I was NOT going to a Ford dealer to find the truth about Dodge cars.

Fred,

I love that line!
Thank you for sharing your story with us. I think that whether people end up in the same place or not they can appreciate your sincerity.

[Akoue]

Joe,

I think you are right to bring up the "rule of faith". This is very helpful.

In the early Church, there were, of course, a number of groups who had broken off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (churches founded by the Apostles and their disciples). Some of these, principally gnostics, claimed that there was no need for Apostolic authority, that we didn't need an institutional Church, but could have unmediated access to Christ apart from his Church. Of course, we know from the NT that the Apostles themselves rejected this ("so called gnosis", as Timothy puts it). Some of the gnostics established themselves in urban centers and worshiped in Churches (e.g. Marcion), while others became itinerant preachers.

A number of the faithful were being mislead by these individuals, and in response the bishops of the Church (principally Irenaeus) said that there is a rule of faith in matters of doctrine, there is a way of settling disputes, and this mechanism lies with bishops who can trace their authority back to the Apostles themselves. Since these bishops were overwhelmingly in agreement, and since they were ordained by men who had been ordained by the Apostles or their disciples, they were in the most advantageous position to preserve the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The rule of faith, then, says that in matters of doctrine the faithful should adhere to the teaching of bishops whose authority as bishops can be traced historically, from one generation to another, to the Apostles themselves, since those bishops received the charism given by the Apostles directly.

Since, as you rightly point out, even heretical views appeal liberally to Sacred Scripture, the rule of faith is intended to provide a means by which to adjudicate among competing interpretations (or readings, or understandings) of Scripture.

[arcura]

Akoue,
Yes, that is why The Church is Kingdom of God on Earth as ruled by The Church princes; the Bishops with the original authority from Jesus Christ; God the Son.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Joe,

I think you are right to bring up the "rule of faith". This is very helpful.

In the early Church, there were, of course, a number of groups who had broken off from the main body of Apostolic Churches (churches founded by the Apostles and their disciples). Some of these, principally gnostics, claimed that there was no need for Apostolic authority, that we didn't need an institutional Church, but could have unmediated access to Christ apart from his Church. Of course, we know from the NT that the Apostles themselves rejected this ("so called gnosis", as Timothy puts it). Some of the gnostics established themselves in urban centers and worshiped in Churches (e.g., Marcion), while others became itinerant preachers.

A number of the faithful were being mislead by these individuals, and in response the bishops of the Church (principally Irenaeus) said that there is a rule of faith in matters of doctrine, there is a way of settling disputes, and this mechanism lies with bishops who can trace their authority back to the Apostles themselves. Since these bishops were overwhelmingly in agreement, and since they were ordained by men who had been ordained by the Apostles or their disciples, they were in the most advantageous position to preserve the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The rule of faith, then, says that in matters of doctrine the faithful should adhere to the teaching of bishops whose authority as bishops can be traced historically, from one generation to another, to the Apostles themselves, since those bishops received the charism given by the Apostles directly.

Since, as you rightly point out, even heretical views appeal liberally to Sacred Scripture, the rule of faith is intended to provide a means by which to adjudicate among competing interpretations (or readings, or understandings) of Scripture.

Akoue, et al:

Paraphrasing St. Francis de Sales, the sole and true rule of right-believing is the Word of God as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ. This rule is made up of eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning.

The first two principles can be considered formal principles, combined; we say they give us knowledge in “Christian faith grounded on the Word of God.” It is warranted as eternal and infallible God’s Truth. We can be assured that those things taught by the Apostles and their successors are proof of the living Word those first twelve witnessed. Scriptures are but a special case of our living Tradition, preserving the very actions and deeds of witnesses who received their tutorage directly from Christ. Thus, our objective faith can be validated by the witness of Scripture when rightly understood. But, what of those things that are of subjective in our faith or what of those things not clear or understood in Scripture. Who validates Scripture? Since this validation is of an infallible Word of God, who has infallible accreditations.

Consequently, the formal and sacred rule must have an infallible judge to determine right-reasoning. Accordingly, to certify the revealed Word as genuine, we need guidance in the practical application of the formal rule; without which we would be in constant doubt; do we believe rightly or not?

Some might say that Scripture itself is infallible, which in principle is true. However, our understanding of scripture is subjective to human nature and as such fallible. Further, we don’t find any verse that might suggest that Scripture validates itself as being an infallible rule of faith; Christ didn’t set out written instruction in his own hand. We find that Christ’s mission, in part, establishes a “Church;” not a Scripture. And, should we find Scripture infallible, it would rightly be an object of worship – that is having the infallible spirit of word. We decidedly don’t worship a book.

There is a practical way to discern our application of the fountain of truth. Right-believing or Right-reasoning demands a charitable yielding of authority to the Church of Jesus Christ in matters of faith to determine that infallibly the Word. She, as the bride of Christ, becomes the spokeswoman and interpreter for her spouse. The Church discharges her rule by consent of the body of Christians, by her pastors, priests, and doctors in general council, by the union of her bishops in union, or in correspondence or in assembly, and by declaration of the living successor of Peter. Cf. St. Francis de Sales, "the Catholic Contoversy"


JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT777
Thanks much for posting that.
There is much to ponder and absorb there.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

Paraphrasing St. Francis de Sales, the sole and true rule of right-believing is the Word of God as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ. This rule is made up of eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning.

Why is Father de Sales' thinking any loftier or more acceptable than anyone else's who has studied the Scriptures for years? Many, many non-Catholics, for instance, do not recognize him or even know his name. Only in the Catholic Church are his name and his ideas of any importance.

I guess my real question is, can Tradition belong only to the Catholic Church?

[arcura]

Wondergirl.
Saint De Sales thinking is very good.
There are people in other denominations whose spiritual.scripture thinking is very good.
We can and do learn from each other IF we do not let bias get in the way.
Tradition (with a capital "T") belongs to all Christians.
After all it was provided from and by Christians for others.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Why is Father de Sales' thinking any loftier or more acceptable than anyone else's who has studied the Scriptures for years?

De Sales' reasoning is true; it reflects God's revealed Truth “disciplined” by Tradition reflecting the deposit of faith in the orthodox Catholic. To reason this way prevents error. After all, as Francis de Sales argues, we are dealing with an infallible truth, thus an infallible judge is necessary.

Many, many non-Catholics, for instance, do not recognize him or even know his name. Only in the Catholic Church are his name and his ideas of any importance.

I would expect they wouldn't recognize him. The reason is that we see a trend whereby Protestantism forces interpretation onto Scripture to fit the will of man. In the Catholic world man subjects his will to God, as opposed to finding some scriptural support whereby the will of God is subjugated. Therefore, I find God's objective Truth as taught by the RC Church always remains true.

I guess my real question is, can Tradition belong only to the Catholic Church?

Catholic Tradition belongs to all of us; whether it is accepted is another matter.

JoeT

[Akoue]

I didn't read Joe's presentation of Francis de Sales as an appeal to de Sales's authority. I read it--and maybe I am wrong to do so--as a nice encapsulation by de Sales of what many others have long held to be true. In other words, if someone isn't moved by de Sales's authority I think the general point still stands, to wit, that there is a serious and thoughtful alternative to the view that takes a deflationary attitude toward Tradition.

As mentioned in the OP, there is a tendency among some to see the appeal to Tradition as a threat to Scripture. (Though it isn't at all obvious to me that Scripture was ever supposed to be regarded as the sole source of revelation; there is good reason to hold that Scripture and Tradition were always meant to work hand-in-glove, so to speak.) But those who advocate for the importance of Tradition don't take the two to be in competition; Tradition isn't taken to supplant Scripture but to deepen and enliven our understanding of it. This view is sometimes described by its foes as threatening Scripture, as a man-made imposter taking Scripture's place. And while, as I have said above, I think reasonable people can have a healthy disagreement about these issues, what I've just described is an understanding of Tradition that no one holds. That is to say that no advocate of Tradition thinks it is licit to dispense with Scripture. The question really turns on how we are to understand Scripture, given the empirical fact that people who are perfectly well-intentioned understand it differently.

I have talked to people over the years who sometimes seem to think that a guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand is perfectly well positioned to understand the full depth and meaning of the Bible, without studying the languages in which it was written, or the history of its transmission, or the way the earliest Christians themselves understood it. While I don't mean to ascribe this view to anyone here, I think it is reasonable to regard that attitude with some suspicion.

[Wondergirl]

The question really turns on how we are to understand Scripture, given the empirical fact that people who are perfectly well-intentioned understand it differently.

So is there only one right way to understand Scripture? Do we all have to study classical languages, the lives and writings of ancient churchmen, and the culture/history at the time of the writing not only of Scripture but of those church fathers (Tradition) in order to understand Scripture? Or is the understanding of that "guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand" good enough for his situation and for his needs? How I understood the Scripture when I was 16 was different from how I understood it as a young mother and that was different from how I understand it now as someone coming to the end of my life. Are all of those understandings wrong, or are the Scripture and God "big enough" to allow such a thing?

[Akoue]

So is there only one right way to understand Scripture? Do we all have to study classical languages, the lives and writings of ancient churchmen, and the culture/history at the time of the writing not only of Scripture but of those church fathers (Tradition) in order to understand Scripture? Or is the understanding of that "guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand" good enough for his situation and for his needs? How I understood the Scripture when I was 16 was different from how I understood it as a young mother and that was different from how I understand it now as someone coming to the end of my life. Are all of those understandings wrong, or are the Scripture and God "big enough" to allow such a thing?

Fair question. I suspect we all see an evolution in our understanding of Scripture over time. But since the meaning of Scripture doesn't change with us--a particular verse doesn't say one thing and time T1 and something very different at time T12--then some of my interpretations must have been mistaken. If God isn't being equivocal, then any given passage of Scripture can have only one true meaning, and it's our job to get to that meaning. I believe (hope!) I understand Scripture better today than I did twenty years ago. But I may very well still be wrong about lots of things. And this is something I have to have humility about: It would be wrong of me to assume that *my* best understanding is the *right* understanding. It is for this reason, in part anyway, that I avail myself of the ways in which others understand it. The fact that my current understanding suits my current needs doesn't make my current understanding true. So I think God is plenty "big enough", and I think the Scriptures are plenty "big" too: They are immensely deep, and I'm not confidant saying that I have an exhaustive understanding of them. And when my understanding of a particular verse, lets say, differs from the way it was understood by all the early Church Fathers... well, this gives me pause about the way I understand it.

[talaniman]

That's interesting, what if ancient man was wrong in his translation, or interpretations, and teaches the wrong thing through time? How does that effect modern man, who supposedly is more aware, if not smarter??

[Wondergirl]

Thats interesting, what if ancient man was wrong in his translation, or interpretations, and teaches the wrong thing thru time?? How does that effect modern man, who supposedly is more aware, if not smarter???

We know life and society have changed since the Bible was written and since various translations were made. The Bible writers and later Church Fathers didn't have a clue about cars and airplanes and AIDS and in-vitro fertilization and stem cells and women's lib and civil rights and 40-hour work weeks. I wonder if that knowledge would have affected their writings, i.e. how would they have written nowadays.

[Wondergirl]

And when my understanding of a particular verse, lets say, differs from the way it was understood by all the early Church Fathers... well, this gives me pause about the way I understand it.

So how I understood the Bible as a 16 y/o was wrong? And as a young mother was wrong? Even thought I was helped spiritually at the time?

How do we ever know our understanding is "right"? And what is "right"?

[De Maria]

So how I understood the Bible as a 16 y/o was wrong? and as a young mother was wrong? even thought I was helped spiritually at the time?

How do we ever know our understanding is "right"? And what is "right"?

For those of us who are Catholic, the answer is simple, we accept the Teaching of the Church.

[arcura]

Akoue,
I very much like your explanation.
I was raised a Protestant: Was never exposed to what the culture in Jesus time was lile, or how the early Christians understood Scripture.
But beginning about 35 years ago I began to be exposed to that.
The more I learned the more surprised I was at how little I understood several parts of the bible and what it was saying.
I began to understand why Jesus founded an earthly authority to carry on His teaching.
Now 40 years later I'm happy that I tread that path. I'm still on it and still growing.
I'm sure that the longer I live the more I will grow as I tread along.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

I didn't read Joe's presentation of Francis de Sales as an appeal to de Sales's authority. I read it--and maybe I am wrong to do so--as a nice encapsulation by de Sales of what many others have long held to be true. In other words, if someone isn't moved by de Sales's authority I think the general point still stands, to wit, that there is a serious and thoughtful alternative to the view that takes a deflationary attitude toward Tradition. As mentioned in the OP, there is a tendency among some to see the appeal to Tradition as a threat to Scripture. (Though it isn't at all obvious to me that Scripture was ever supposed to be regarded as the sole source of revelation; there is good reason to hold that Scripture and Tradition were always meant to work hand-in-glove, so to speak.) But those who advocate for the importance of Tradition don't take the two to be in competition; Tradition isn't taken to supplant Scripture but to deepen and enliven our understanding of it. This view is sometimes described by its foes as threatening Scripture, as a man-made imposter taking Scripture's place. And while, as I have said above, I think reasonable people can have a healthy disagreement about these issues, what I've just described is an understanding of Tradition that no one holds. That is to say that no advocate of Tradition thinks it is licit to dispense with Scripture. The question really turns on how we are to understand Scripture, given the empirical fact that people who are perfectly well-intentioned understand it differently.

I have talked to people over the years who sometimes seem to think that a guy sitting alone in a recliner with a beer in his hand is perfectly well positioned to understand the full depth and meaning of the Bible, without studying the languages in which it was written, or the history of its transmission, or the way the earliest Christians themselves understood it. While I don't mean to ascribe this view to anyone here, I think it is reasonable to regard that attitude with some suspicion.

Yes, it was intended as an encapsulation of de Sales and thanks for the compliment.

I find it important that Scriptures are witnesses to God's revelations as well as a working Theology; both exposing God's revelation and providing the means by which we can understand that revelation. God wisely created us with varying abilities to understand theology. Can you imagine the pandemonium of a world full of scholars arguing over whether the sandals worn by Christ were tied or whether they were buttoned? However, we are not all doctors of the faith. In fact, some of us can hardly read and the other part may not have the intelligence whereby we can understand God's revelations in the written form. Therefore, to these, without an infallible guide to scripture, the meaning of salvation becomes lost- and poor reclined Joe is lost. Are they to be denied salvation? It seems to me that only a pernicious God would offer salvation only to those whom were granted the understanding. However, God is gracious; Christ not only removed the barrier of death, but instituted a Church to minister His presence, he provided for an infallible teaching Magisterium necessary to receive Him. Thus, we see that God is truly just, providing salvation to all mankind, both king and pauper equally. And He even provides for your poor reclined beer-in-hand everyday JoeT. The provisions made for an infallible guide adds meaning to the practicality of the verse, “the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?” (Matt 6:26)

Fair question. I suspect we all see an evolution in our understanding of Scripture over time. But since the meaning of Scripture doesn't change with us--a particular verse doesn't say one thing and time T1 and something very different at time T12--then some of my interpretations must have been mistaken. If God isn't being equivocal, then any given passage of Scripture can have only one true meaning, and it's our job to get to that meaning. I believe (hope!) I understand Scripture better today than I did twenty years ago. But I may very well still be wrong about lots of things. And this is something I have to have humility about: It would be wrong of me to assume that *my* best understanding is the *right* understanding. It is for this reason, in part anyway, that I avail myself of the ways in which others understand it. The fact that my current understanding suits my current needs doesn't make my current understanding true. So I think God is plenty "big enough", and I think the Scriptures are plenty "big" too: They are immensely deep, and I'm not confidant saying that I have an exhaustive understanding of them. And when my understanding of a particular verse, lets say, differs from the way it was understood by all the early Church Fathers... well, this gives me pause about the way I understand it.

St. de Sales suggests that “in order that we may not be subject to hesitation and uncertainty it is necessary not only that the first rule, namely the Word of God, but also the second, which proposes and applies that rule, be absolutely infallible; otherwise we shall always remain in suspense and in doubt as to whether we are not being badly directed and supported in our faith and belief, not now by any defect in the first rule, but by error and defect in the proposition and application thereof. Certainly the danger is equal, - either of getting out of rule for want of right rule, or getting out of rule for want of a regular and right application of the rule itself.“ Again, God provides all that is needed for salvation.

JoeT

[magprob]

In ancient Israel, traditional laws were passed down by word of mouth from teacher to student, from one generation of Sages to the next. The Oral Law was the traditional learning of the Pharisees, a religious sect and political party. The Sadducees were the religious and political rivals of the Pharisees. The Pharisees eventually committed Oral Law to writing sometime between two thousand and fifteen hundred years ago.

The Oral Law can now be found in the Talmud, which contemporary rabbis tell us is the primary book of law for Jews. Contemporary rabbis are directly attuned with the Pharisees of Jesus' time through long and intensive study of the Pharisaic teachings in the Talmud.

"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson
And
"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

From one of my very, very favorite study sites:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html

[arcura]

JoeT777,
I very much agree with you on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Thats interesting, what if ancient man was wrong in his translation, or interpretations, and teaches the wrong thing thru time?? How does that affect modern man, who supposedly is more aware, if not smarter???

Tradition doesn't quite work the way it's being thought of here. I understand that the term “Tradition” was first used by St Irenaeus, Against Heresies written around 190 A.D. It is derived from the Latin Trāditiō, to hand down or to hand over.


“ …we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.” Against Heresies, bk 3, 3

Writing in about 190 A.D. St. Irenaeus clearly, at least conceptually, the existence of a Doctrine of Tradition. Here we see an admonishment of private interpretation of doctrine and relies on “Tradition.” The argument of Against Heresies is best described by the book's subtitle, Refutation of Gnosticism and the surrounding unorthodox approach to doctrine.

The Church was organized at Rome by Peter which even then Apostolic succession and teaching was relied on as authoritative; “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.”

... Eubulus and Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren, salute thee. ( 2 Tim 4:21)

As much care was taken with “Tradition” as clerics took reproducing faithful copies of the Bible. As we've seen with these small samples, Tradition and Scripture harmonize.

Paraphrasing S. J. Charles Coppens' “A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion”, bearing the Nihil Lobstat of S. Ludovici, August 13, 1903, Censor Theol.
Ecclesiastical Tradition has come to encompass the following:
1.) Sacred Liturgy common to the Church, “so that the law guiding our supplication affords a rule of our beliefs. “ (Pope St. Celestine, 431)

2.) Historical record of the Acts of Martyrs in antiquity; St. Clement divided Rome into seven districts and had the martyr's stories recorded.


3.) Archaeology and studies of relics in antiquity

4.) Definitions of Church doctrines, pronouncing anathemas on errors and define doctrine as in the case of Pius IX proclamation defining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Equally important confirming decrees of councils and synods. Speaking from the Vicar's Chair, a Pope governs infallibly through proclamations and pronouncements in harmony with Scripture and Tradition.

5.) Maintain and authenticate the writings of the Early Church Fathers and rule over their theological interpretation.

(link) A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion

So, believers find an infallible and authoritative guide to an informed way of "Right-Reasoning". Joined by the Holy Spirit harmonious Tradition and Scripture keep Christ's promise to “prevail against the gates of hell.”

What the Doctrine of Tradition is not is the collection of local or Church wide customs. Also too, many requirements of the Church, like celibate priests and Bishops, are wrongly mistaken as Tradition; such actions of the Church are viewed as “discipline.”

In ancient Israel, traditional laws were passed down by word of mouth from teacher to student, from one generation of Sages to the next. The Oral Law was the traditional learning of the Pharisees, a religious sect and political party. The Sadducees were the religious and political rivals of the Pharisees. The Pharisees eventually committed Oral Law to writing sometime between two thousand and fifteen hundred years ago.

The Oral Law can now be found in the Talmud, which contemporary rabbis tell us is the primary book of law for Jews. Contemporary rabbis are directly attuned with the Pharisees of Jesus' time through long and intensive study of the Pharisaic teachings in the Talmud. Navigate "Come and Hear"

It's been my understanding that It has always been a Tradition of the Church that oral teaching was within the teaching Magisterium of the Church. In fact, some hold that the Sacred Scriptures are a special form of this.

JoeT