“Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”.”
That is the root of our disagreements. ‘Sacred Tradition’ is NOT something passed down from the Apostles, but is the continuous revealing (clarifying / unfolding) of truth to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. For a Catholic, it is essential the scriptures be read in their ‘light’, and thus the ‘Church’ must do the interpreting to prevent error.
For if one simply READS the words of God (”God-breathed”), then one not only CAN come to a different conclusion, but USUALLY does. Hence the push by reformers to get scripture into the hands of the laity in their own tongue. Wycliffe felt confident that it would win the argument for him, and I agree.
“Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” - 2 John
Hard to abide in teaching that hasn’t been ‘unfolded’ yet...but those who do abide have “both the Father and the Son”.
one can, and has, arrive at all sorts of heresy like Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and infinite variations which continue to this day.
Having your own church and interpretations of the same words guarantees nothing, least of all accurate theology.
Good point!
For if one simply READS the words of God (”God-breathed”), then one not only CAN come to a different conclusion, but USUALLY does. Hence the push by reformers to get scripture into the hands of the laity in their own tongue. Wycliffe felt confident that it would win the argument for him, and I agree.
Hence this quote from the October 2008 Synod of Bishops, on the thread A Literate Church: The state of Catholic Bible study today [article from America: The National Catholic Weekly:
...while fewer believers know much about the Bible, one-third of Americans continue to believe that it is literally true, something organizers of the Synod on the Word of God called a dangerous form of fundamentalism that is “winning more and more adherents…even among Catholics.” Such literalism, the synod’s preparatory document said, “demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research”....See also this thread, covering the same Synod:
"As we begin the work of this synodal assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, let us turn our gaze to Christ, the light of the world and our only teacher," Cardinal Levada encouraged.The prelate's point was further developed when Cardinal Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Quebec, took the floor to affirm that the Word is much more than the Bible. He clarified that Christianity is not a religion of the Book.
"The Word of God means before all else God himself who speaks, who expresses in himself the divine Word that belongs to his intimate mystery," he said.
This Word, he added during his Latin-language discourse, which he delivered seated beside the Pope, speaks in a particular and also dramatic way in the history of man, especially in the election of a people, in the Mosaic law and the prophets.
The natural American aversion to central government is fine in secular matters and the Church shares it, thanks to the principle of subsidiarity, but the idea that leaving the understanding of Scripture to the individual has been a positive development is simply not borne out by history.
Isn't God a better father than that? I think so. Would a parent say to a child "figure it out for yourself" or would he say "here lies the truth; all else is error"?
I vote for the latter.