Replies

"Scripture" and "Tradition" are not two stand-alone sources of doctrine, potentially competing with or rivaling each other. The NT Scriptures are part of Sacred Tradition, a subset. Sacred Tradition comprises both the Oral Teachings and the Written Teachings (Scriptures), which have equal authority.

The authority of the Church in all this is demonstrated in that it was men of the Church -- Apostles, Evangelists, Bishops, Synods, Councils --- who wrote the books of the NT, who preserved them, who passed them down to us, and who confirmed their official content: which is to say, they developed the canon.

The canon was and is: the books authorized by the Church for liturgical use.

Were it not for the inspired activities, especially liturgical activities, of the Church, we would not have Scriptures.

So you can see how there is an interaction and an interdependence of tradition-in-writing, tradition-in-spoken-word, and tradition-in-practice. They necessarily have the same authority, though they have it in different ways.

"Scripture" and "Tradition" are not two stand-alone sources of doctrine, potentially competing with or rivaling each other. The NT Scriptures are part of Sacred Tradition, a subset. Sacred Tradition comprises both the Oral Teachings and the Written Teachings (Scriptures), which have equal authority. The authority of the Church in all this is demonstrated in that it was men of the Church -- Apostles, Evangelists, Bishops, Synods, Councils --- who wrote the books of the NT, who preserved them, who passed them down to us, and who confirmed their official content: which is to say, they developed the canon. The canon was and is: the books authorized by the Church for liturgical use. Were it not for the inspired activities, especially liturgical activities, of the Church, we would not have Scriptures. So you can see how there is an interaction and an interdependence of tradition-in-writing, tradition-in-spoken-word, and tradition-in-practice. They necessarily have the same authority, though they have it in different ways.

I understand the propaganda that imagines that the non-inspired declaration of the purportedly wholly inspired oral tale of the Assumption (despite its lack of testimony even in early tradition) which was made binding belief approx. 1700+ years after it allegedly occurred, is equal to the wholly inspired record of the virgin birth.

However, beside writing being God's manifest means of preservation and all that, the fact remains that the assertion that when the bishops and the Pope speaks (infallibly) then what they say is inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit is not true as it is with Scripture.

Were it not for the inspired activities, especially liturgical activities, of the Church, we would not have Scriptures.

Which pertains to the issue raised in my other response you have yet to get to, namely, is your argument that being the instruments, discerners and stewards of holy Writ means such are the infallible interpreters of it, and thus the validity dissent is disallowed?

Or in any case, are you arguing that if we accept that Rome settled the canon then that logically means we must accept all else that she likewise officially states? If that is not your argument, than of what weight does the basic oft-parroted polemical statement, "we gave you the Bible" have? Maybe you can ask whoever gave you this argument.

You post as if axiomatic, "Were it not for the inspired activities, especially liturgical activities, of the Church, we would not have Scriptures." First and foremost THE CHURCH is not the catholic church, albeit you slyly try to use the term as if it were. The institution of the Catholic beliefs was used BY GOD because HE chose to do so for HIS REASONS which you and I have not a clue.

THE EKKLESIA, Church of believers not a religious institution, gathered the letters and Gospels and shared them among congregations, making a collection by making careful copies. By the time Polycarp wrote to the Phillipians his letters make reference to so much of what is now in The Bible that it is thought all of what became canon was already well established among the EKKLESIA.

Were it not for the inspired activities, especially liturgical activities, of the Church, we would not have Scriptures.

Nonsense!

Jesus referred to Scripture long before Catholicism existed.

The Jews recognized all of the OT as it exists in the *Protestant* Bible as Scripture by the time of Christ, before the Catholic church added books to their canon at the Council of Trent.