...the big debate over Dei Verbum at the time of the council pitted what was then known as the “two-source theory,” which held that Scripture and tradition are essentially two separate streams of revelation, against the “one-source theory,” which posited that Scripture is the lone source of revelation and tradition is an elaboration of it. In effect, Dei Verbum held that Scripture and tradition are interdependent and integrally related to one another.
Because I know that Yah'shua is the Holy Word of Elohim. I pray, he is just speaking for the RCC.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Indeed... and this is exactly as Scripture itself teaches in 1 Tim. 3:15, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 3:6 and elsewhere.
And the Word is...God the Son, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.
I am not so hung up on whether you say “Word” or “Bible”, as when people say “bible” they most often do so understanding the bible as “the Word of God”.
Seems right to this Catholic.
What do you think?
“Bishop George Punnakottil of Kothamangalam, India, from the Syro-Malabar Church, offered a gentle rebuke to synod organizers for neglecting the Eastern tradition, noting that the working paper for the synod contained just eight citations from Eastern fathers. He argued that the Eastern perspective can help achieve one of the synod’s main aims, which is restoring spiritual depth to the way the Bible is read, beyond historical and literary analysis. Emphasizing development of the “inner eye of faith,” Punnakottil said that “true theologians are true saints.””
Excellent advice for all you Western types...:)
Before the canon of Scripture was closed (another issue), it was appropriate to allow “the word of God” to include verbal speech, such as Paul’s preaching to the Thessalonians (1 Ths. 2:13). But the way we know it was wholly inspired of God is because it says it was in Scripture, which class of revelation the Holy Spirit assures us is wholly inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16).
This does not mean God cannot speak to souls today, and fundamentalists do not disallow this - esp. during the offering - but such is not guaranteed to be inspired as Scripture is, and it must be tested for conformity the Scriptures, which authority the noble Bereans even tested the very apostles by (Acts 17:11), rather than implicitly submitting to them as infallible.
As for the words of “church tradition,” they cannot be held as wholly inspired of God (and often are contrary to it), though out of this realm some of Scripture was transmitted by, as the canon is closed, and thus to make any other stream of revelation equal to it (which Rome makes her nebulous, uncodified traditions) is to essentially add to the canon.
Moreover, ecclesiastical authority, old or new, is not guaranteed to be infallible, though they declare themselves such and establish criteria for it. The Jewish form of Magisterium is shown not to be infallible by the reproof of prophets (by which God preserved His elect), and the Lord Himself, who reproved them for “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” one of which was by the law of corban (Mk. 7:6-13).
As do many today, “They supposed that when Moses was on Mount Sinai two sets of laws were delivered to him: one, they said, was recorded, and is that contained in the Old Testament; the other was handed down from father to son, and kept uncorrupted to their day. They believed that Moses, before he died, delivered this law to Joshua; he to the Judges; they to the prophets; so that it was kept pure until it was recorded in the Talmuds.” - Barnes
What inspired teaching the apostles (etc.) did was confirmed by Scripture, as well as by powerful supernatural attestation (Rm. 15:19: but which itself must be tested by the Word), and their appeal to the hearts and minds of men assumed that men such as the common Bereans would discern what was inspired of God.
(Luke 24:44) “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”
(Acts 17:2) “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,”
(Acts 18:28) “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”
(Acts 28:23) “And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.”
(Exo 17:14) “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”
(Exo 34:27) “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.”
(Isa 30:8) “Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:”
(Jer 30:2) “Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.”
So you see, Catholics do use Holy Scripture as well as the Holy Tradition it is linked to.
Where did the writer get that?