People COULD do it. The Old Testament went unwritten for many years. I am quite amazed what the human mind can do when tasked to do something. You realize that the Iliad was completely memorized by bards, retold over and over, for many years, before it was written down. Men CAN spread the Gospel without reading it. As you have said before, the Gospel message, the core, is not difficult. We argue about verses of Scripture, but these are theological details that probably don't bother most people. I have given you an example from St. Ireneaus' time on how he praised a community who had NO Bible but were quite orthodox. People into the Medieval period didn't read the Scriptures - they "read" it through stain glass, through traveling artists in skits, through the liturgy (we hear it proclaimed at Mass) or practiced in daily living. This we call Tradition. The living faith of the Church. But really, does a person need to read the entire Bible to understand the Gospel message - love?
I have no problem with an oral teaching that is from the Bible or is at least consistent with it. I do have a problem with teachings that lead away from God or the Bible. One example would be any teaching that discourages the individual's reading of scripture.
I agree. Regarding your last sentence, I think you'd have to understand what was happening with the Reformation and the call to read and come up with your own interpretations that led people astray of the Church. I believe the Church found it necessary to issue a warning to beware of reading the Bible APART from the Church. It still does this today - but encourages us to read the Bible.
I wrote "We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church)."
You responded I had never thought of it that way. Is the difference between the last two that one "is" the teachings and the other "are" the people giving the teachings?
Not sure I understand that question. The Magesterium are the Bishops who interpret the Bible and the 2000 year history of HOW the Church previously interpreted the Bible (Tradition). They make the teachings of Christ pertinent to OUR problems today, such as stem-cell research.
But, as you like to point out, at that time there was no full Bible yet. So, I don't see how this example refutes Bible self interpretation. Another thing I find interesting is that it was specifically the Spirit who moved Phillip to go and witness to this man.
There was an Old Testament. It follows that the New Testament is also supposed to be read in light of the Church's teachings given to them by the Apostles. There is nothing wrong with reading the Bible - the Church encourages it! We just must be careful not to come up with our own interpretations that disagree with what God has already revealed through the Church. God is truth and does not disagree with a past revelation given.
I just believe that Jesus doesn't need the self of man to explain Him outside of Biblical teachings. Of course we disagree on the authority of different men throughout the ages.
Then Jesus' teachings can never be known without doubt...
I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
Then Jesus didn't intend for His Church to last beyond the Apostles...
I think Jesus gives us the answers in other places in the Bible. At the time, though, I'm sure He did more fully explain many of His teachings to audiences He wanted to understand. Much is not recorded in the Bible, but everything we need is.
Proof texting is not the way of determining a teaching of Christ. I believe that theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. When an Apostle went to a village, he gave a Body of Teaching that exceeded the entire content of the Scriptures. Scriptures did not explicitly encapsulate all of these teachings, although we can find them implied within. I gave you the example of intercessionary prayers to saints in heaven.
We don't believe that we interpret scripture based on ourselves. We believe the living Spirit within us guides us.
That's the rub, brother. If I use Protestant theology, how can a totally depraved human KNOW that the Spirit of God is "speaking" to that person? The Catholic theology of "wounded man" doesn't help, in this matter. We just DO NOT KNOW! We are told to TEST the Spirit. But test it against WHAT? Our own opinions? Other interpretations that we came up with before? No, we are to test it against the teachings given to us by the Church. I find it difficult, myself, to determine what is God's will in my specific life. I find my own self interjecting itself, perhaps the devil. Thus, we can not really know if the Spirit is speaking on a particular belief WITHOUT the Church as a point of reference. Without a reference, you are blowing in the wind...
How could one know anyway? I may not be sure what you mean by Protestant dogma. We try to always use the Bible to back up any practice or teaching.
Say Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The idea of man and free will. We BOTH know that there is Scripture that point to BOTH points of view. These two groups will NEVER agree because they only see their own proof texts and they disregard the other's. Without a Church to say "man has free will in a secondary sense. Man does cooperate with God and is expected to bend himself, with God's help, to God", how is a third person supposed to KNOW? This is what I mean. And even an honest Calvinist - when addressed with texts that show man's cooperation - what does he think about it then? God didn't leave us in the dark to argue about such matters!
The Spirit is not error-prone. He is perfect. We can make errors, just like individual Saints did. If you believe that the Spirit is God, what is wrong with depending on Him alone?
You seem to have a difficult time understanding my point - that we do not KNOW that the Spirit is speaking a specific doctrine into our heads!
We know it is the Spirit speaking to us if the insight points to God
You mean YOUR idea of God. Again, you are relying on your own human abilities to "hear" the Spirit and determine what God "is" through your own intellect. If it matches what the Church teaches, great. But if it doesn't, well, the Church must be wrong.
I suppose it {writing a book that no one understands} makes as much sense as saying a Mass in a language that very few understand
LOL! Touche! It would take too much time to explain that earlier thought on the Mass concentrated more on what was happening, the sacrifice of Christ being represented, rather than on people participating in that.
The Bible did not come from men who are fallible. God used the fallible men for labor, but did not let their fallibility interfere with the creation of His word. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the authors of the Bible were perfect.
The reason why people of the time believed that the compiled Bible WAS the Word of God was because those same people knew that the Church claimed infallibility on such matters. They knew that Christ had established it and was protecting it from error. They had experienced God working through those men previously. Thus, when they said "this is Scripture", they believed it, as we do today.
Jesus taught and quoted from the OT all the time. How could He have done that if the God of the OT was different from the God He was? If they were different Gods then all of Christianity is a fraud. I never thought of the Gnostics as real Christians anyway. I'd lump them in with the JWs.
Because not everyone understood Jesus as the same essence as God. Recall that the Greeks had a different understanding of God, and the demiurge or other lower levels of "gods". The Gnostics could use the message of Christ while still maintaining their concept of multi-level dieties. St. Ireneaus in "Against Heresies" (180 AD) writes quite extensively against these "Christians". It would take too much time to detail it all here. Suffice to say that already during the time of Scripture's writing, there were other people who did not follow the orthodox teachings of the Apostles. Look esp. to the latter books, Jude, 1 John, Colossians, Revelation. They all talk about the battle that orthodox Christianity was already involved in.
Bible contains everything we need to know from God
If you add "...when properly interpreted", then it makes more sense. I have previously posted from men of 100-200 AD who noted that heterodox men "confiscated" Scriptures to back up their own fancies, such as Gnosticism or Arianism. Without the correct "lense" to read Scripture through, you won't come to the same conclusions and understandings then in the sense that it was written. All I need to say is "Eucharist".
Regards
I agree with that, but if it is the true gospel, then won't it be reflected in scripture whether the person has read it or not directly?
As you have said before, the Gospel message, the core, is not difficult. We argue about verses of Scripture, but these are theological details that probably don't bother most people.
Yes, absolutely.
But really, does a person need to read the entire Bible to understand the Gospel message - love?
No, but a person does need to understand what is at the core of the Bible to know God well enough to accept Him. Acceptance is only meaningful if we understand at least the basics of what Christianity is.
I believe the Church found it necessary to issue a warning to beware of reading the Bible APART from the Church. It still does this today - but encourages us to read the Bible.
OK, fair enough.
The Magesterium are the Bishops who interpret the Bible and the 2000 year history of HOW the Church previously interpreted the Bible (Tradition). They make the teachings of Christ pertinent to OUR problems today, such as stem-cell research.
Maybe I have been misinterpreting what "tradition" is all along. I pinged you to a post a little while before this one on this topic. I have been thinking that tradition is extra-Biblical, not automatically wrong, but not in the Bible.
FK: I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
Then Jesus didn't intend for His Church to last beyond the Apostles...
I don't see why that's so. Why can't the Church, theoretically, flourish under either of our views? What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
Proof texting is not the way of determining a teaching of Christ. I believe that theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next.
Do you mean chronologically, or in importance? If the latter, then the interpretations of men, even God aided, supersede the inerrant word of God? This would reject ANY sense of "plain meaning" scripture.
If I use Protestant theology, how can a totally depraved human KNOW that the Spirit of God is "speaking" to that person? The Catholic theology of "wounded man" doesn't help, in this matter. We just DO NOT KNOW! We are told to TEST the Spirit. But test it against WHAT? Our own opinions? Other interpretations that we came up with before? No, we are to test it against the teachings given to us by the Church. I find it difficult, myself, to determine what is God's will in my specific life.
We can know because the Spirit is resident, indwelling. Therefore, we are no longer "totally depraved". Of course, we make mistakes in receiving the message of the Spirit, but He keeps working in us for life. That's why I'm always open to learning better teachings. The Spirit will bring me along on His time schedule, not mine.
Our test would be against the Bible first, as the Spirit leads us.
Say Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The idea of man and free will. We BOTH know that there is Scripture that point to BOTH points of view. These two groups will NEVER agree because they only see their own proof texts and they disregard the other's. Without a Church to say "man has free will in a secondary sense. Man does cooperate with God and is expected to bend himself, with God's help, to God", how is a third person supposed to KNOW?
Well, first of all I would say that Catholics can disregard proof texts with the best of them! :)
The third person is led by the Spirit, just as I am. I would agree that the third person wouldn't have a prayer of coming up with the RCC view by just reading the Bible himself. :) I believe the Spirit has led me to make the advancement from the Arminian view to the Calvinist one. It was on His timetable, not mine. Perhaps there was other maturing I had to do first before I was ready to accept it. (I can't know for sure.)
You seem to have a difficult time understanding my point - that we do not KNOW that the Spirit is speaking a specific doctrine into our heads!
Maybe I am having difficulty. :) We can know by the faith God gave us, and His promises to us in scripture. If I hear any doctrine from the satanic church I immediately reject it. If I hear any doctrine that admits openly practicing homosexuals as Bishops, like from the "Protestant" Episcopalians I also immediately reject that. The Spirit has led me to understand that teaching does not point to God, so I reject it. I'm not perfect, and I don't claim to have everything right. So, I have the rest of my life for the Spirit to continue to teach and lead me.
FK: "...Bible contains everything we need to know from God."
If you add "...when properly interpreted", then it makes more sense.
I can agree to that.
All I need to say is "Eucharist".
I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?
God bless