[Wondergirl]

It might contradict your opinions but it does not contradict itself or Scripture.

Doesn't Catholic Church Tradition include additions to Scripture?

[JoeT777]

Seems to me, when man establishes his beliefs, and traditions, and want all to follow that path, the name of God is always invoked, thereby making it Divine, and above reproach. Most of the worlds bibles are put together this way, and a devoted bunch of followers always hand picks what goes into them.

I think you've missed the light when you turned the corner. Divine Traditions aren't established to constrain, rather to liberate. It marks God's reveled trail of Truth though a worldly wilderness terminating in the Divine; whereby each new journey needn't be preceded with cutting a new trail. Catholic Tradition requires a freely given ascension to Tradition becoming unfettered in truth. Where it follows that “not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth”. (St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Prima Q, 15 a5). God's Truth is absolute. Thus, we find Divine Traditions to be objective Truth as opposed to subjective.

Devotion imposed on a “bunch of followers” is oppression. I don't know about you, but this god I'll avoid.

Man as high minded as he tries to be, or whatever his motives were back then, has always made his own traditions, to reflect his policies of the day. His goal was survival of his way of life, and continue as they that came before him, so truth is subjective, and the search for what is, lies in actively seeking that truth, not being told what the truth is. In accepting any truth from any bible, there is the danger of being closed to the facts, or even oblivious to the truth, when we see it, and can only really judge by the actions of those who are giving us the truth.

High-mindedness isn't a newly found characteristic of men, and motives should always be subject to scrutiny. But, looking at Christ's motives as described in Scripture certainly don't seem survivalist. Not unless you think men of His time just hung around on crosses to protect their way of life. Accepting the Truth of Scripture as guided by Church Tradition opens a world of Truth; a witness of which is in the lives of the Saints that followed.

Not knocking any religion per say, just pointing out the personal responsibility we all have of the actions we partake of, and the path we choose to follow.

Let's get real; yeah you are – I was born at night, but not last night. But, that's ok; maybe you just got to cut your own path for awhile. So, keep looking for a better way and someday you'll re-cross the Church's trail and decide to let it guide you.

Merry Christmas

JoeT

[JoeT777]

doesn't catholic church tradition include additions to scripture?

No

[De Maria]

Doesn't Catholic Church Tradition include additions to Scripture?

Joe already answered. And he is correct. No.

[Tj3]

With this understanding of prophesy, we can come to know that the Book of Revelations,
is a mystical revelation of events across a broad spectrum of time. So, when it speaks of 12 Apostles in the book of revelations, it may be referring to a fugitive image of the original 12 Apostles in the past, it may be speaking of the 12 Apostles living at the time John wrote the Revelations, or it may be referring to a mystical 12 Apostles of the future.

So are you saying that you don't believe the book of Reveleation when it says that there are ONLY 12?

[Tj3]

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

The Apostles, being Jews, cast lots to know God's will.

Again, where does it say that the choice of Matthias was endorsed by God?

[Tj3]

Doesn't Catholic Church Tradition include additions to Scripture?

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture and contradicting things which are found in scripture. The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.

[Wondergirl]

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture and contradicting things which are found in scripture. The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.

And some of those doctrines are...
And some of those contradictions are...
And some of those books are...

[Akoue]

Hi Wondergirl.

It is sometimes said that the Catholic Church added the so-called deuterocanonical books to the canon of the OT at Trent. Since the deuterocanonicals were included in the Septuagint, the OT Scripture that was used by many first century Jews and which is quoted in the NT, Catholics don't regard this as an addition to Scripture. In addition to direct quotes from the Septuagint in the NT, there are also numerous allusions and references to the deuterocanonical books themselves, including Maccabees and Wisdom.

But this just gets us back to the question: How do we know which texts are genuinely Scriptural? Tj says that the deuterocanonical books contradict Scripture. Now, I'm interested to see what he takes those contrdictions to be, but in order for that claim to go anywhere he must already assume that these books aren't themselves Scripture. He must already have chosen a different canon. But what certifies that choice as the right one, and that canon as the right canon in preference to another? In other words, for somebody to say that the deuterocanonicals contradict Scripture he must already have made up his mind that they are not themselves part of Scripture. And my question is: On what grounds, by means of what procedure, is it determined which texts belong to Scripture and which do not. If, as Tj has said above, the canon was determined by God, then this just pushes the question back a step: How do we know we are using the right canon, the one God intended for us? If we aren't to appeal to Tradition, the Church Fathers, the history of the early Church, etc. then I'm unlcear how anybody can be in a position to say of any book that it does or does not belong to the NT canon. We could end up with as many canons as there are people, and that leaves us with nothing that could count as any kind of standard at all.

So this is closely related to the OP: How do we know who is reading Scripture correctly and who is misunderstanding it? These are the two questions which I, at least, find to be quite difficult and also terribly important for anyone who believes in divine revelation through the written word. Earlier in this thread we were given an answer by those who look to Tradition to help resolve these matters. I'm interested to learn how people who do not appeal to Tradition approaach them.

[Wondergirl]

I'm interested to learn how people who do not appeal to Tradition approaach them.

I was raised in and belonged to a church body that believe Christ pointed to Himself, not to Peter, as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. I still agree with that understanding of those verses. That same church body believes that the collection of books Protestants calls the Apocrypha is not part of the canon, not the inspired Word of God, but is simply a collection of books that recounts a certain period of Jewish history, "the time between the testaments."

Those are only two disagreements with Catholic Church Tradition.

[talaniman]

Tradition requires a freely given ascension to Tradition becoming unfettered in truth.

You mean to your version, or perspective of the truth, and that's okay as long as free will is exercised to follow that tradition.

God's Truth is absolute. Thus, we find Divine Traditions to be objective Truth as opposed to subjective.

Again you make inference that you know the only truth and presume it is divine, as do so many others of other bibles, truths and traditions. Wars are fought on the premise that man knows God's truth, for all the good that has done man!

Devotion imposed on a “bunch of followers” is oppression. I don't know about you, but this god I'll avoid.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Accepting the Truth of Scripture as guided by Church Tradition opens a world of Truth; a witness of which is in the lives of the Saints that followed.

No doubt you have your heroes, as good people tend to be, no matter their perspective on truth, or their motives behind their actions, doing good deeds as an example to others.

Let's get real; yeah you are – I was born at night, but not last night. But, that's ok; maybe you just got to cut your own path for awhile. So, keep looking for a better way and someday you'll re-cross the Church's trail and decide to let it guide you.

That's my point, my search is over, and the path is clear, thanks to a personal relationship with a God that I understand, and will not put anything between me, and My God, not tradition, books, or anyone. That's my truth that I accept with free will. Its okay if you cannot grasp, or agree. But as long as your truth makes you happy, I truly am glad, and hope it shows you the path your seeking. We all have to start somewhere, in the way of life.

Good holiday, and peace to you, and yours.

[JoeT777]

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture and contradicting things which are found in scripture. The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.

Comments withdrawn – refer to post 196 “I've been trying to keep this discussion focused on Tradition vs. not-Tradition, rather than on Catholic vs. not-Catholic.” My comments were related to this latter group.

JoeT

[De Maria]

So are you saying that you don't believe the book of Reveleation when it says that there are ONLY 12?

Show me where the book of Revelation says there are "ONLY 12".

[De Maria]

Again, where does it say that the choice of Matthias was endorsed by God?

Why'd you ignore the rest of post #179?

[De Maria]

It effectively adds by including doctrines not found in scripture

No. Anytime you want to debate anything you think is an addition to Scripture, start a thread. I'll be glad to educate you.

and contradicting things which are found in scripture.

It is actually you who does that all the time. Like for instance, in this thread saying that Jesus appointed St. Paul in place of Judas. That is an addition to Scripture.

The Catholic church did add books to the canon of scripture at the Council of Trent.

Nope. Those books were in the Catholic Scriptures from the time of Jesus who used the Septuagint Old Testament which included them. It was Luther who took them out.

However, that's not even the subject of the thread. Do you take every opportunity to attack the Catholic Church?

[Akoue]

I was raised in and belonged to a church body that believe Christ pointed to Himself, not to Peter, as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. I still agree with that understanding of those verses. That same church body believes that the collection of books Protestants calls the Apocrypha is not part of the canon, not the inspired Word of God, but is simply a collection of books that recounts a certain period of Jewish history, "the time between the testaments."

Those are only two disagreements with Catholic Church Tradition.

That's fine. I've been trying to keep this discussion focused on Tradition vs. not-Tradition, rather than on Catholic vs. not-Catholic. Since Catholics aren't the only Christians who look to Tradition (there are more than half a billion Eastern Orthodox, for example), I've tried where possible to give a kind of bland conception of it so that it isn't too narrowly focused on the Catholic Church. And my questions regarding the NT canon were framed in terms of the first and second centuries in part to try to keep this thread from turning into a re-hash of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation: Trent good vs. Trent bad. That argument has been had in this forum a number of times and, frankly, I find that many of the exchanges quickly become distasteful. If we look to the early years of Christianity, when the NT canon was coming into being, I think we are better situated to set to one side the standard move-and-counter-move that plays itself out over and over when Trent comes up. (I'm not trying to duck anything here; I think it's an interesting conversation well worth having, I just wanted to stay focused on something from a different historical period in the hope that it would focus attention on what I, at least, regard as the over-arching question.) But I am just the humble OP, not the master of this thread, so I'll let the conversation evolve as it will... as it always does.

I've been trying to put some pressure on different views, in order to get a better sense how those views actually play out once the slogans are set to one side. I hope I haven't been heavy-handed about this.

[Akoue]

De Maria,

I thank you for your efforts to keep us on-topic.

Really, much appreciated.

[Akoue]

Talaniman,

I get the impression from your posts--and it's just an impression, I don't mean to put words in your mouth--that you are sensitive to the historical conditions surrounding the production and canonization of both the Bible and Tradition. I wonder if you would be willing say a few words about how you see the relationship between the Bible and Tradition, on the one hand, and those historical conditions that you find to be salient, on the other.

Feel free to beg-off if you don't feel like giving a history lesson, though!

[JoeT777]

Good holiday, and peace to you, and yours.

Thanks,

Merry Christmas

JoeT

[De Maria]

I was raised in and belonged to a church body that believe Christ pointed to Himself, not to Peter, as the Rock upon which His Church would be built. I still agree with that understanding of those verses. That same church body believes that the collection of books Protestants calls the Apocrypha is not part of the canon, not the inspired Word of God, but is simply a collection of books that recounts a certain period of Jewish history, "the time between the testaments."

Those are only two disagreements with Catholic Church Tradition.

That's OK. I once had many disagreements with the Catholic Church myself. I'll give my understanding just as fyi, there is of course no obligation to believe it:

First, we remember that Jesus named Simon, Cephas, meaning Rock in Aramaic. Not little rock or any other such thing. So, when we get to Matt 16, we know that the reason Matt says, "Petros" is because it is the masculine form of the word for Rock. Not to demean Simon in anyway.

So, Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Who is the Rock?

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Christ is the Rock!

And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock will build my Church"

So God gave Simon the name that represents God.

2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.

Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.

Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:
Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Has, God ever done this before? Yes. He did it with Moses:

Is Moses God? Of course not. But what did God say?
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:
Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

As for the Apocrypha, Jesus used the Septuagint form of the Bible, which was confirmed by the Early Church in many councils.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
The Canon of the Bible

Thanks for the question.

Sincerely,

De Maria