0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the relationship between sacred scripture and sacred tradition?
Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ. They flow out of the same divine well-spring and together make up one sacred deposit of faith from which the Church derives her certainty about revelation.
Where will ii fine scripture of lucifer's make up?
Isaiah 14 gives the make up of Lucifer
What are some sacred scripture of the Jewish religion?
The sacred scriptures of the Jewish Religion are the Torah, Prophets, and 'Writings', corresponding to the 'Old Testament' up to the books of Chronicles, plus the 'Megillot' of Esther, Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.
How does knowing that oral tradition came before the written text help?
In answering this question, I can only presume that the questioner has some familiarity with the Protestant vs. Catholic polemics over the role, nature and purpose of Scripture vs. Tradition. Prior to going further, lets get some definitions down. Scriptura Sola: Scriptura Sola is one of the twin pillars of the "Reformation." The other pillar was "Fide Sola." Scriptura Sola is a Latin phrase. Translated into English it means "Scripture Alone" or loosely "Bible Only." Scriptura Sola can be difficult to precisely define because Protestants are not in agreement as to what the definition is. All Protestants would agree with the following definition: Scriptura Sola means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, and the Christian. All other authorities are by definition in a lesser capacity then that of Scripture and therefore submit to Scripture. This is because of Scirpture's uniqueness as that which is "God Breathed" or "Breathed out by God." (Second Timothy 3:16.) Scripture is the Supreme Authority in the Church, there is no authority higher then Scripture or equal to Scripture. Protestants after this point will tend to differ on the nature and role of Tradition. Some Protestants would claim that Tradition is useful, it has a role in the Church, but it is not on a par with the Scripture. Tradition is normed by Scripture, not visa-versa. Other Protestants would deny the role of Tradition in any sense. Some Protestants will grant authority to the Church, but like in the case of Tradition will claim the authority of the Church is not on a par with Scripture. Other Protestants will not grant authority to the Church. Catholics by contrast believe that the revelation of God which culminated most perfectly with the Incarnation is transmitted to the Church by Scripture and Tradition. Catholics point out that there was a Church before there was Scripture. The Faith existed before there was Scripture. This is true both for the ancient Jewish people and the early Christians. In fact the Church can only receive and recognize Scripture because the Faith came first. Scripture is a product of the Faith of the Church, an artifact of the Faith of the Church. Scripture did not beget Faith, rather Faith begot Scripture. The Church knew who she was, and what she believed before ever a word was penned. In recognizing and receiving Scripture the Church was recognizing Scripture as a Mirror of the Faith. What does this have to do with Scriptura Sola? Very simply, if the the Scriptures are a product of the Faith the Church professes, this means that Faith is preserved in the Church through Tradition, not simply writings alone. It means that the Church's testimony is just as reliable as the testimony of Scripture. If this is true, then quite obviously it is not only Scripture which is infallible. Catholics can grant Scripture alone possesses the charism of Inspiration, but Catholics would not grant that only Scripture is infallible. The pattern works like this within the Church: the Church first believes by Faith, then seeks to write down what she believes. First came the Revelation, then came reception of the Revelation, then and only then did the Church seek to crystallize it in writing. What this means is that Faith is preserved in Scripture and Tradition, but because there has never been a time in the life of the Church (as a whole) when only one functioned, both are essential in the life of the Church in order to most completely and fully express the Revelation of God to all generations. Protestants deny that Tradition is essential, arguing instead that the Scriptures Alone preserve the Faith, and therefore are essential. The essence of a living being never changes. Thus, because the Apostolic Church functioned with dual authorities: the Scripture and the Tradition, the post apostolic Church functions the same way. Tradition gives birth to Scripture, Scripture ensures the Church keeps true to the essence of Tradition. There is nothing in Tradition which does not have basis in Scripture, and there is nothing in Scripture without foundation in Tradition. These dual authorities if you will seek to work in tandem to hand on the Word of God through successive generations in the Church. Often times in Catholic/Protestant polemics, when Scripture and Tradition are discussed, it is not long before the Protestant brings up the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and accuses Catholics of denying the formal sufficiency of the Scriptures. "Why do you need to 'add' your Tradition to the Word of God?" asks the Protestant. "Historically even the Fathers of the Church upheld the formal sufficiency of the Scriptures." They will then proceed to quote at length quotes from the Fathers to bolster their position. (Webster and King wrote a whole volume on the Fathers and Scripture. This is volume three of "Scripture: Ground and Pillar of Faith." In my mind to turn the debate into one of Sufficiency misses the point. The Early Church Fathers indeed affirmed the sufficiency of Scriptures, however, at the same time alien to the thought of the early church fathers was the questions which would begin to surface in the late Middle Ages, namely "Is it possible that the Church could or would teach something that is outside the Scriptures." Unlike the modern questions, the early fathers were not asking questions about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Therefore to read statements by the early church fathers which speak to the formal sufficiency of Scriptures, and read into such statements "Scriptura Sola" is rather anachronistic. In the second place, the real debate is not whether the Scriptures are sufficient, but rather whether or not the Scirptures are the SOLE infallible rule of Faith in the Church. The denial on the part of Catholics of Scriptura Sola does NOT hinge on the sufficiency of Scriptures. What Catholics deny, when they deny Scriptura Sola is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of Faith in the Church, NOT necessarily the sufficiency of Scriptures. Tradition does not add to the Scriptures, but rather is another expression of the same Revelation which Scripture testifies. The content of Tradition is the same as Scripture. Tradition simply gives a fuller expression to the words of which Scripture testifies. Tradition is a fuller expression of Revelation because the words of Scripture find embodiment in the Faith of the Church which comes through Tradition. The words of Scripture are God's Word, but God's Word was given to the Church. Therefore the words that Scripture speaks must be embodied by a person, namely the person of the Church. The Church takes the words of Scripture and gives them life through her Tradition.
Who is entrusted with the responsibility of authentically interpreting the Christian Sacred Scriptures?
This is something every Christian can do. Many Christians believe they have the Holy Spirit indwelling them and the Holy Spirit will bear witness to the Christian what is truth and what is not truth. Also there are established ways to interpret Scripture to avoid error. For example your should compare Scripture with Scripture. So if you say a piece of Scripture means 'this' and what you say is not backed up by other Scripture then you may be wrong - in a sense allowing the Bible to interpret itself and not someone else. Also, reading the topic Scripture in full context to get the real meaning.
Why did egyptians wear make up?
it was tradition, a queens' way of expressing beauty .
What is the name of the Holy Bible and what is it about?
By most the sacred text of Christianity is called the Holy Bible - also referred to as the Scripture. It is a collection of writings inspired by God for mankind - a user's guide if you will. It can be summed up, IMHO, by the term 'love.'
What other writings do jews hold as sacred?
The sacred book of Judaism is the Tanach - the Jewish Bible. The word Tanach is an acronym made up of the names of its three sections: Torah (Teachings), Nevi'im (Prophets), K'tuvim (Writings).
What is vinaya pitaka?
The Vinaya Piṭaka is a Buddhist scripture, one of the three parts that make up the Tripitaka. See link below
Why are there shoes on the philmont sign?
People put them up there at the end of the hike. Just a tradition after you make it back.
What 3 religions scripturs make up the tenach?
The Tanakh is the sacred book of Judaism. It consists of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.
In the time of Jesus how did one look up a specific scripture?
At jesus time scripture were read from schrolls.
