Talk:Catholic theology
| “ | Van Bebber says, "This allegorical interpretation gave birth to a new brand of Christianity. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), although not as extreme as Clement or Origen, accepted this new approach. Through Augustine the mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology became inter-twined. And, since Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture, changing this trend became impossible. Eventually, the roots planted in Augustine took full bloom in Thomas Aquinas" (1224-1274 A.D.). | ” |
Taken from here Ed, how does a single line copied and pasted from a another article and taken out of context constitute an article?--JohnD 08:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- If it's out of context, please supply the context. Was it misleading in any way as cited? --Ed Poor Talk 08:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- There are I think a number of things wrong with it. Firstly, it is a direct quotation but it is not referenced as such (i.e not in quotation marks, not lead in saying 'So and so wrote'. Secondly, the reference given is not for the quotation itself but for another article using the same quotation. Thirdly, the quotation is only a fragment of a sentence, but is not presented as such. I think the the correct way to do this is to add '...' before and after, or better just quote the complete sentence. Finally, Catholic Theology is I imagine a complex issue and I do not think a single sentence does it justice. Perhaps someone with more expertise than I could expand it? I shall try and correct some of these in a moment, it this is ok?--JohnD 09:06, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Britannica
led. Beliefs and practices » Tradition and Scripture
In Roman Catholic theology, tradition is understood both as channel and as content. As channel it is identical with the living teaching authority of the Catholic church. As content it is “the deposit of faith,” the revealed truth concerning faith and morals. In Roman Catholic belief, revelation ends with the death of the Apostles; the deposit was transmitted to the college of bishops, which succeeded the Apostles.
“St. Matthew,” page from the Ada Codex, c. 890; in the Stadtbibliothek Trier, …[Credits : Courtesy of the Stadtbibliothek Trier, Ger.]The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Bible is the word of God and that tradition is the word of the church. In one sense, therefore, tradition yields to the Scriptures in dignity and authority. But against the Protestant slogan of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”), itself subject to misinterpretation, the Roman Catholic Church advanced the argument that the church existed before the New Testament. In fact, the church both produced and authenticated the New Testament as the word of God. For this belief, at least, tradition is the exclusive source. This belief also furnished a warrant for the Catholic affirmation of the body of truth that is transmitted to the church through the college of bishops and preserved by oral tradition (meaning that it was not written in the Scriptures). The Roman church therefore affirmed its right to determine what it believed by consulting its own beliefs as well as the Scriptures. The Council of Trent affirmed that the deposit of faith was preserved in the Scriptures and in unwritten traditions and that the Catholic church accepts these two with equal reverence. The council studiously avoided the statement that they meant these “two” as two sources of the deposit, but most Catholic theologians after the council understood the statement as meaning two sources. Some Protestants thought it meant that the Roman Catholic Church had written a second Bible.
In contemporary Catholic theology this question has been raised again, and a number of theologians now believe that Scripture and tradition must be viewed as one source. They are, however, faced with the problem of nonbiblical articles of faith. To this problem several remarks are pertinent. The first is that no Protestant church preaches “pure” gospel; all of them have developed dogmatic traditions, concerning which they have differed vigorously. It is true, however, that they do not treat these traditions “with equal devotion and reverence” with the Bible. [1]
Is this a more authoritative source than what you call an "email"? --Ed Poor Talk 09:19, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- Ed I'm sorry there has been a misunderstanding. I have no problem with using an email conversation as a source. What I meant was that you were not referencing the source directly, you were referencing someone else referencing. It was, to use a wiki term, a double redirect. This, along with the other issues I brought up, was a problem for me.--JohnD 09:24, 17 December 2008 (EST)
