The Bible with Tradition or the Bible Contradicting Tradition
My last post was an explanation of John 21 and the power given by Jesus to forgive sin given to the Apostles. I am sure however there were many who would have said "No, No, this was not what Jesus meant" and came out with their own interpretation based on the assumption that what they put forward was revealed by the Holy Spirit to them. After all the Bible was written by the authority of God and could be understood by all for that very reason. Yet this unanimity among Christians just does not exist.
When I quote from the Bible I need much further guidance. The Books of the New Testament were written or inspired at the very beginning of the Church, when the apostles and their contemporaries were first teaching the Gospel of Christ. In the Upper Room they had prayed for guidance and discussed what Jesus had meant about 'eating his flesh and drinking his blood", "whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven whose sins you shall retain they are retained", "Unless a man is born of war and the Holy Spirit", then the Holy Spirit had descended on them to further enlighten and give them courage to preach. It is against this background that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John then the Letters of Paul, James , and Peter were written. But at the same time there were letters from Clement, Ignatius of Antioch ands others which were also inspired by the teachings of the Apostles since the Apostles had taught them. When I say I rely on Tradition to help me interpret scripture I am therefore taking the passage I read in the Bible back to the scrutiny of the Early Church and how they interpreted the teachings of Christ.
But where did the Bible come from? In three to four hundred years after the passing of the Fathers, there were many letters and Gospels circulating and christians were growing anxious about the validity of many and asked the Church to intervene. The Church responded in three great Councils, the Council of Hippo, and two Councils of Carthage. In these it was decided that only those teachings and gospels from the Apostles and their contemporaries should be discussed. Then they had to decide which of the writings of the contemporaries should be included to keep the choice to a reasonable size. They then brought forth the books of the New Testament and declared them as the 'Word of God' The Pope at the time was sent the conclusions and ratified the findings. It must be said that these actions in no way made the letters of Clement, such as the one to the Corinthians, in any way invalid or those of the other contemporaries.
It is important for Catholics therefore, whenever they meet in cells or Bible groups to be aware of the Catholic roots of the Bible, and read the Gospels through Catholic Tradition. It is a dishonour to Christ for anyone in a Catholic circle to read the Bible without reference to this and believe they can interpret scripture outside the Church.
O God who by the light of the Spirit did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Spirit we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in his consolation.
When I quote from the Bible I need much further guidance. The Books of the New Testament were written or inspired at the very beginning of the Church, when the apostles and their contemporaries were first teaching the Gospel of Christ. In the Upper Room they had prayed for guidance and discussed what Jesus had meant about 'eating his flesh and drinking his blood", "whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven whose sins you shall retain they are retained", "Unless a man is born of war and the Holy Spirit", then the Holy Spirit had descended on them to further enlighten and give them courage to preach. It is against this background that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John then the Letters of Paul, James , and Peter were written. But at the same time there were letters from Clement, Ignatius of Antioch ands others which were also inspired by the teachings of the Apostles since the Apostles had taught them. When I say I rely on Tradition to help me interpret scripture I am therefore taking the passage I read in the Bible back to the scrutiny of the Early Church and how they interpreted the teachings of Christ.
But where did the Bible come from? In three to four hundred years after the passing of the Fathers, there were many letters and Gospels circulating and christians were growing anxious about the validity of many and asked the Church to intervene. The Church responded in three great Councils, the Council of Hippo, and two Councils of Carthage. In these it was decided that only those teachings and gospels from the Apostles and their contemporaries should be discussed. Then they had to decide which of the writings of the contemporaries should be included to keep the choice to a reasonable size. They then brought forth the books of the New Testament and declared them as the 'Word of God' The Pope at the time was sent the conclusions and ratified the findings. It must be said that these actions in no way made the letters of Clement, such as the one to the Corinthians, in any way invalid or those of the other contemporaries.
It is important for Catholics therefore, whenever they meet in cells or Bible groups to be aware of the Catholic roots of the Bible, and read the Gospels through Catholic Tradition. It is a dishonour to Christ for anyone in a Catholic circle to read the Bible without reference to this and believe they can interpret scripture outside the Church.
O God who by the light of the Spirit did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Spirit we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in his consolation.
Comments
Post a Comment