Posted on 04/28/2015 6:01:54 PM PDT by Salvation
On the Infallibility of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium
1. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium are a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity.
Tradition is a reflection of the Father; Scripture is a reflection of the Son; Magisterium is a reflection of the Spirit. Scripture proceeds from Tradition, just as the Son proceeds from the Father. Magisterium proceeds primarily from Tradition and Secondarily from Scripture, just as the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son. Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium are three distinct aspects of One Divine Gift, just as the Trinity is three distinct Persons of One Divine Being. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium are inseparable, just as the Father, Son, Spirit are inseparable. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium are infallible because they are a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Holy Trinity.
2. Sacred Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.” (Dei Verbum, n. 2).
Sacred Tradition is infallible because it is the deeds of the Infallible and Most Holy Trinity. Everything that God is and everything that God does is One Divine Eternal Infallible Act. Sacred Tradition is infallible because it is a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Father.
If the deeds wrought by God in salvation history were merely teaching stories or myths, with little or no historical value, then Tradition would cease to be the deeds of the God and would not be infallible.
3. Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Scripture is infallible because it proceeds from infallible Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it is a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Son. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it is words written by God, and because it is the Word of God, and because it is One Utterance of God.
If Sacred Tradition does not exist, or if it is not the infallible deeds of God, then Sacred Scripture would lose its foundation and would not be infallible. If Sacred Scripture is fallible, then it is not the Word of God. If Sacred Scripture is full of errors, then Sacred Tradition, from which Scripture proceeds, would be full of errors. If Tradition and Scripture are full of errors, then the Teaching of the Church would be full of confusion and error. Such is not the case.
4. Sacred Magisterium proceeds primarily from Sacred Tradition and secondarily from Sacred Scripture.
The Sacred Magisterium can be exercised by the Pope alone, or by the body of Bishops led by the Pope. The Sacred Magisterium is infallible because it is a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Spirit. The Sacred Magisterium is infallible because it teaches only from Sacred Infallible Tradition and Sacred Infallible Scripture, by the Infallible guidance of the Most Holy Spirit.
If Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are not infallible, then neither can the Sacred Magisterium be infallible, for the Sacred Magisterium teaches only from Tradition and Scripture. The Sacred Magisterium cannot teach that Tradition or Scripture contain errors of any kind, because Tradition and Scripture are the foundation of the Sacred Magisterium.
5. The Canon of Sacred Scripture is the books of the Bible recognized by the Sacred Magisterium.
The books of the Bible include the Old Testament books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees; and the New Testament books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture are all the words of all of the above books, including the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts in Daniel and Esther, and the prologues of Lamentation and of Sirach, which are found in the Latin Vulgate.
Excluded from the Canon of Scripture are any books from that same general time period but not listed above, including other so-called gospels, epistles, or apocalyptic writings. Also excluded are the apocryphal books (those that are not called Deuterocanonical), including Psalm 151, the prayer of Manasseh, and 1 Esdras. Also excluded from the Canon of Scripture is the alleged document called 'Q' or 'Q-source,' and any hypothetical reconstructions of such an alleged document. Further excluded are any and all hypothetical reconstructions which claim to recover the sayings or words of Jesus better than, or above and beyond, what is Divinely-revealed in Scripture itself.
6. There is no single definitive version or edition of the Bible.
Among the many versions and editions of the Bible, in the many different languages, no one version or edition can stand alone as the definitive version. No one version or edition can claim to hold all the truths of the Bible. No one version or edition can claim to bring an end to the usefulness or necessity of all other versions and editions. Any particular version or edition may clarify certain truths, yet obscure other truths, even within the same verse. No one wording or language brings out every level of truth found in every verse. Comparing the wording of several different versions or editions, especially in different languages, often brings the reader to a greater understanding of the truth than could ever be presented to the reader in only one version or edition or language.
7. There is no single definitive language for the Bible
No one language is definitive over every other language, yet of the various languages used in ancient times, and of those used to translate in modern times, each makes their contribution to the task of making the unfathomable depths of the many levels of Truth found within the Sacred Texts clear and accessible to the faithful.
When the Council of Trent emphasized the importance and indisputability of the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Fathers of that Council did not specify a particular edition to be preeminent above other editions, but rather they taught that the Latin Scriptural tradition, having its roots in the earliest days of the Church, is authoritative, cannot be ignored or rejected or belittled, and must never pass away from usage and veneration in the Church. But neither did they even suggest that the Hebrew or Greek or other languages be ignored or rejected or belittled.
Contrary to the belief and practice of modern scholars, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text of the Old Testament is definitive. The Greek text of the New Testament is not definitive. Even those languages not used during Biblical times, languages into which the Bible is translated, often bring to the text a new phrasing that clarifies truths which were otherwise quite obscure in the Biblical languages. Every language into which the Bible has ever been written or translated contributes substantially to this holy expression of Truth in written form. Let no one ever say or believe that the true meaning of the Bible cannot be understood apart from the original languages of the Bible. Let no one ever claim that any word or phrase in the Bible can only be understood in its original language. Every word and phrase in the Bible is able to be translated and able to be understood in its translated form.
8. The truths of the Bible are not completely contained, nor fully expressed, in any single edition.
The truths of the Bible subsist across every version and edition put together. Since no one language, translation, version, or edition of the Bible is definitive, the Bible is every manuscript, translation, version, and edition, in every language, put together. All the editions of the Bible are one edition. All the languages of the Bible are one language. All the languages, manuscripts, printings, translations, versions, and editions of the Bible are one Text, in the sight of the One Holy God.
9. Any edition of the Bible may have errors particular to that edition.
God never allows such particular errors to enter every extant edition of the Bible, nor to become lost in a myriad of editions duplicating the same error. These errors are not errors in anything asserted by the sacred writers or by God through the sacred writers. These are the possible errors of copyists, printers, translators, and editors. Yet even these errors are never permitted by God to cause the Truths of the Sacred Word of God to become lost to the faithful. God protects the Truths of Scripture to the extent that copyists, printers, translators, editors, commentators, and readers, on the whole, cannot cause even the slightest truth of Scripture to pass away from the life of the Church on earth. Therefore, the infallibility of Sacred Scripture is a continuous work of the Holy Spirit.
The possible errors of particular editions include copyist errors, printing errors, translating errors, and editing errors. Copyist errors are frequently seen in ancient manuscripts, which include misspellings, dropped or added words or letters, repeated words, or the confusion of one word with another similar word. Printers errors include a similar array of possible mistakes. Translator errors are easily seen by comparing various translations and by finding verses where different translations have opposite or irreconcilable meanings. Editing errors are seen in misleading punctuation or capitalization, in the omission of certain parts of the text or their relegation to a footnote, and in any unwise addition, subtraction, or substantial change in the text. Translators and editors also sometimes make unwise decisions on the overall approach to translating and editing, such as trying to accommodate the text to modern concerns, altering the text to suit the ideas of modern culture and society.
10. Everything asserted by the Bible as true, is infallibly and unerringly true, without exception.
Some assertions are made deliberately and knowingly by the sacred writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Other assertions are made by the Holy Spirit, even beyond the understanding and intention of the inspired writers. In both cases, everything asserted as true by the inspired writers, or by the Holy Spirit through the writers, is infallibly true. These truths include truths of faith and morals, truths of science, history, geography, human nature, human society, and all other areas of knowledge and understanding. These truths include, but are not limited to, those truths written for the sake of our salvation.
11. Apparent errors in the Bible have a number of explanations, in particular: misunderstanding the text, a lack of faith, and even an ill will.
Some passages are mistakenly interpreted an overly literal manner and so seem to be false. Other passages are mistakenly interpreted according to a modern way of thinking. The ancients had a different way of describing and understanding the world. Some readers expect an unreasonable degree of precision from the text. The Bible is both true and accurate in all that it asserts as true, to whatever degree of accuracy it asserts. Some passages are thought to be in error because the order of events is different, but it is a common storytelling technique to present events in other than a chronological order. Quotes in the Bible are not presented as if they were exact word-for-word quotes, such as we write today. They are free quotations, sometimes rewording the quote and sometimes joining it with words from another passage or another speech. This is not an error, but merely a difference between the ancient and modern method of expressing quotes.
Unusual or miraculous events described in the Bible are sometimes used to support a claim that the Bible contains falsehoods. The problem here is not found in the text, but in the lack of faith in the reader concerning the miraculous intervention of God in human events. If, however, there should be any passage or verse which seems to be false and for which no reasonable explanation is presently available, the reader should still believe, with a sincere and constant faith, that the passage or verse is true and without error. For anyone who believes only what he understands possesses understanding, but not faith.
Finally, it is clear that some persons deliberately seek passages that they can distort, so as to claim that the Bible is false and unreliable. Such persons have an ill will toward the Bible because they despise its true teachings on faith and morals. They undermine the authority of the Bible in order to exalt themselves, to justify their own sins, and to teach others the same. They deliberately attack the Bible with false accusations because of the malice in their own souls.
12. The Sacred Magisterium has the ability and the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture infallibly.
All theologians and Biblical scholars must submit to the authority of the Sacred Magisterium to interpret and to teach from Tradition and Scripture. Each Christian should read or listen to the Bible, learning directly from the text. But each Christian should also form his understanding of the text according to the teachings of the Magisterium.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
December 16, 2005
I was ready to comment on this, got distracted for a couple of hours, and came back to see that it had rubbed others the wrong way, too.
This constant belittling of Protestants, along with puffing up the credentials of Catholics and former Protestants, is getting really tiresome for several reasons. First, it comes across as incredibly arrogant - perhaps you should review the book of Proverbs to see how frequently humility is praised. Second, people who resort to personal insults usually have weak arguments and wish to intimidate the opposition into silence. Third, you personally haven't shown a superior spiritual understanding. Your posts are typically cut and post jobs with you personally adding little content. You really haven't shown that you are somehow "swimming in the deep end of the pool." Fourth, lavishing praiseful adjectives on someone to puff up their credentials does not make them some heavy-hitter in the theological world. Finally, it simply comes across as childish and unbecoming to someone who claims the name of Christ.
There is nothing ad hominem about holding to the One Truth of Christ anymore than Christ Himself spoke of “fools, hypocrites, blind guides, whited sepulchers, murderers, a generation of snakes.” Now, if you insist on polite language we can do that and gently treat the scriptural interpretations of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joel Osteen, and Creflo Dollar.
But at the heart of all this, are Protestant interpretations in clear conflict with the teaching of Christ and of His ONE Church that infallibly assembled the canonical texts in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 and the Church’s infallible authority was so for ELEVEN centuries until the curse of the Reformation that spawned in Hillaire Belloc’s famous words, “a cluster of heresies.”
The ONE teaching and ONE authority extended to Peter and his successors were never questioned. They included the early Church fathers, some of whom were contemporaries of the evangelist John; the early saints and martyrs, and a renowned array of Catholic theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict XVI -known as the theological Einstein of our times.
Is this your version of the “herd”?
You ask for some proof of Catholic teaching, and we provide you with the writings of an extraordinary Protestant scholar who sought o show Catholicism was all wrong, and then after several years of careful study ended up converting to Catholicism. He is not alone. These are several other eminent Protestant theologians like him who converted to Catholicism as soon as they waded deep into scripture and theological history.
One must gather from all this that your inquiries are not serious.
Instead, we are asked to accept from a menu of different scriptural interpretations ranging from Billy Graham to Jim Jones and reject the teachings of Catholic and eminent Lutheran theologians who converted to Catholicism, the early Church fathers, the infallibility of Petrine authority that assembled the canonical texts, and of course the early saints and martyrs.
The “herd”?
You can now see the comments I offered about shallow Bible Christianity in the context of all of this.
The term “Bible thumpers” came about from Protestants like TD Jakes and others who rain down cascades of scriptural quotes, give it “their” own interpretation, wave the Bible in the air with a sense of foreboding authenticity.y This is no more like the vapid preachings of Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart or Al Sharpton all offering”their” interpretations of scripture, as being the one truth, the one “they” believe.
Now, If you must insist that we use polite terms and not follow the lingo of Christ, well that may be possible too. But we know how Christ referred to such hucksters.
Oops sorry, I used an ad hominem term again. Maybe I should have just gone with “herds” to refer to Peter and his successors.
Very observant comments. Thank you.
I appreciate your perseverance in this matter. Bravo!
No ad hominem - just observation and advice.
I haven’t seen you respond to any of my posts. So no substance to me.
I explained the early Church fathers. They preached keeping the OC Law for the first twenty years of the Church - they were wrong.
Lutherans who convert to Catholicism do not impress me. Lutherans ignore the Bible almost as much as do Catholics.
Yes, you sound like someone who responds with rage driven by paranoia. I deal with this attitude everyday.
Who is shallow? The person who defends what elite visionaries require them to believe, or the person who researches the Bible for them self?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I apologize. I am most certainly willing to discuss issues. May others stick to the same.
The epistle of James insists that Christians must keep the OC Law. Because the “Sacred Magisterium” of the OP claims that the epistle of James is canonical, this proves that it is bunk. Let those who support the “Sacred Magisterium” prove me wrong.
Why don't you show us where anyone besides YOU invoked these people? You're the ONLY one who brings them up?
But at the heart of all this, are Protestant interpretations in clear conflict with the teaching of Christ and of His ONE Church that infallibly assembled the canonical texts in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 and the Church’s infallible authority was so for ELEVEN centuries until the curse of the Reformation that spawned in Hillaire Belloc’s famous words, “a cluster of heresies.” The ONE teaching and ONE authority extended to Peter and his successors were never questioned. They included the early Church fathers, some of whom were contemporaries of the evangelist John; the early saints and martyrs, and a renowned array of Catholic theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict XVI -known as the theological Einstein of our times.
You asserting something over and over and over like a broken record doesn't make it true.
You ask for some proof of Catholic teaching, and we provide you with the writings of an extraordinary Protestant scholar who sought o show Catholicism was all wrong, and then after several years of careful study ended up converting to Catholicism. He is not alone. These are several other eminent Protestant theologians like him who converted to Catholicism as soon as they waded deep into scripture and theological history.
For every Protestant theologian like this, there are thousands who don't swim across the Tiber. I suppose their testimony is to be ignored. What about the Catholics who become Protestants? Their testimony doesn't count, either, right?
One must gather from all this that your inquiries are not serious.
Or that the evidence that you once again provide is not compelling.
You can now see the comments I offered about shallow Bible Christianity in the context of all of this.
So were you showing us "deep end of the pool" analysis? Sorry, I must have blinked and missed it.
But we know how Christ referred to such hucksters.
"Get behind me, Satan"? Oh, wait a minute, that was the First Pope, shortly after his "coronation." Everyone, including you, needs to be careful about presumption - Christ is going to tell some "depart from me, I never knew you."
>”Get behind me, Satan”? Oh, wait a minute, that was the First Pope, shortly after his “coronation.” Everyone, including you, needs to be careful about presumption - Christ is going to tell some “depart from me, I never knew you.”<
Applause...
There is a big difference between infallible and impeccable.
Peter was not impeccable — he sinned. But the power of the Holy Spirit given to him by Jesus Christ made him infallible.
People tend to get those two words mixed up.
So where in Scripture do I find this?
Common English, sir, common English.
Apparently you Protestants are not asserting your own “broken record” despite the fact that many leading and eminent Protestant theologians after years of careful and extensive study, some deliberately setting out to prove the Catholic Church wrong, have not only converted to Catholicism but have reached the obvious conclusion what Dr. David Anders, a former Protestant theological scholar sums up thus:
“I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”
Enough said. You can see for yourself now why you don’t like us Catholics bringing up the rotten and vacuous mass of Protestant scriptural interpretations from Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, and Billy Graham right down to your corner street Fousquare Church pastor. These folks use religion to amass a nice personal fortune for themselves and their families because there are always enough shallow-minded Protestants to fill up the pews long after their theologians have branded Protestantism an embarrassment.
This goes for all the black AME Churches (an utter joke) to all the Evangelicals who offer us “their” own varied and contradictory twisted interpretations of scripture.
Yet Protestants have the gall to question the very Petrine infallibility that gave us the canonical texts and as understood by the early Church fathers, saints and martyrs.
Steelfish,
You can, of course, post however you wish. It just fails to be persuasive to anyone who does not already pre-believe all the Catholic stuff.
Are you only trying to speak to Catholics?
I spoke to you kindly. I tried to help you view your posts from another’s point of view. I’m guessing you are not aware of how you come across.
Since you fail to use evidence, logic and facts, I conclude you have none.
Your posts are filled with truth claims you do not back up. We watch. We ask. They just fall to the ground like deflated Christmas lawn art when dawn comes.
FRiend, you refer to your converted champion as a “extraordinary Protestant scholar”. Not only is this not true, but it is a logical fallacy of argument. An appeal to authority instead of evidence, logic and facts. As such, it is rejected. I’ve already given you my reasons specific to him, but of course it remains a logical fallacy.
That and ad hominem are the “arguments” of the post.
Already recognized as just air.
Is that all you have???
Kindest regards.
Well, I have set forth the findings of a former Protestant historian who sought to show why Catholicism was wrong and after several years of scholarly study at Wheaton College ended up converting to Catholicism.
Is this ad hominem?
Dr. David Anders in his own words:
“I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”
Blessings,
Steelfish
BTW, in addition to Appeal to Authority, I think you have your facts wrong...
He studied as an undergrad at Wheaton College. He became a Catholic when he was doing his PhD at Iowa State. Nothing about Iowa State that will convince anyone he is an authority on Christian matters, even if they accepted the fallacy of the argument itself.
(It’s late and I’m headed to bed, but that is how I remember what I read in your earlier post.)
Best.
<There is a big difference between infallible and impeccable.
Peter was not impeccable — he sinned. But the power of the Holy Spirit given to him by Jesus Christ made him infallible.
People tend to get those two words mixed up.<
I could care less about your word nuances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.