Sources of truth, sources of revelation

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

An interesting conversation has started in this thread about the sources of religious truth in Catholicism and how exactly Catholics are supposed to be able to tell how firmly the Church is advocating a particular position on something. I think that this threatens to derail the thread in question but also that it's worth discussing, and for that matter worth discussing more broadly. Pretty much every religion (and elaborated nonreligious philosophical system) under the sun has some sort of stance on these kinds of questions, and individuals often feel very strongly about them as well, especially (as our own afleitch pointed out recently) when it comes to how one is meant to tell when a supposed moral principle or behavioral restriction is credible. I'd like for us to keep the conversation going here and hopefully expand it into a broader or more general discussion of how different systems of belief and practice handle these things.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Thank you Nathan for creating this thread.

To start, I will just shamelessly copy-paste these theological guidelines from the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline (as of 2016). I did bold the parts I found particularly pertinent.

The Bible is sacred canon for Christian people, formally acknowledged as such by historic ecumenical councils of the church. Our doctrinal standards identify as canonical thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

Our standards affirm the Bible as the source of all that is “necessary” and “sufficient” unto salvation (Articles of Religion) and “is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice” (Confession of Faith).

We properly read Scripture within the believing community, informed by the tradition of that community.

We interpret individual texts in light of their place in the Bible as a whole.

We are aided by scholarly inquiry and personal insight, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As we work with each text, we take into account what we have been able to learn about the original context and intention of that text. In this understanding we draw upon the careful historical, literary, and textual studies of recent years, which have enriched our understanding of the Bible.

Through this faithful reading of Scripture, we may come to know the truth of the biblical message in its bearing on our own lives and the life of the world. Thus, the Bible serves both as a source of our faith and as the basic criterion by which the truth and fidelity of any interpretation of faith is measured.

While we acknowledge the primacy of Scripture in theological reflection, our attempts to grasp its meaning always involve tradition, experience, and reason. Like Scripture, these may become creative vehicles of the Holy Spirit as they function within the Church. They quicken our faith, open our eyes to the wonder of God’s love, and clarify our understanding.

The Wesleyan heritage, reflecting its origins in the catholic and reformed ethos of English Christianity, directs us to a self-conscious use of these three sources in interpreting Scripture and in formulating faith statements based on the biblical witness. These sources are, along with Scripture, indispensable to our theological task.

The close relationship of tradition, experience, and reason appears in the Bible itself. Scripture witnesses to a variety of diverse traditions, some of which reflect tensions in interpretation within the early Judeo-Christian heritage. However, these traditions are woven together in the Bible in a manner that expresses the fundamental unity of God’s revelation as received and experienced by people in the diversity of their own lives.

The developing communities of faith judged them, therefore, to be an authoritative witness to that revelation. In recognizing the interrelationship and inseparability of the four basic resources for theological understanding, we are following a model that is present in the biblical text itself.

I'm posting this because the UMC is the faith tradition I was raised in, not because I necessarily still believe in or follow its tenets (to be honest, I'm conflicted on a lot of these issues these days, but I'm not certain my personal spiritual malaise is particularly relevant to this thread).

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While the term "scripture and tradition" is often used to qualify Roman Catholic views on source of truth, I would describe the Orthodox understanding as "scripture through tradition". In this view, the Bible is the only true form of revelation that God gives to mankind. However, the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgments of the councils tell us how to interpret the Scriptures, and the correct interpretation is that which has been upheld by a consensus of the Church Fathers over the past 2,000 years.

     Of the councils, Ecumenical Councils are of the highest authority, but local councils that they have accepted and later dogmatic councils whose positions have been accepted by the Church also carry weight. We don't usually talk about the strength with which a position is established or condemned since trying to discern what beliefs one is obligated to hold versus which ones can be dissented from is contrary to the spirit of orthodoxy, but in general a position can said to be stated more strongly if it is held by a more highly-ranked council or by a larger consensus of Church Fathers.

[afleitch]

I think there's quite a lot you can say about this topic. So I'll home in on just one scab to pick at, but i hope it doesn't direct this thread too much.

I think in terms of a Catholicism, as a former adherent and observer, what salience certain moral issues have varies country by country. Francis' recent statement on the decriminalisation of homosexuality is very much a shot across the bow of recent concerning developments in the African church and much of Francis' positioning over the past few years has been to, rightly, push back against a degree of 'backsliding' occurring in the post-war settlement the Church has with secular society, itself and laity. That's the only thing he's genuinely impressed me on.

I think in America, again I can only say this as an observer (who oddly found himself at a Catholic mass over Christmas in New Jersey) and as I've mentioned in other threads, the only issue that the Church has had any 'influence' over, is abortion.

It has almost zero traction with a variety of positions on welfare, death penalty, human trafficking, children's welfare, immigration and so forth in either party. So abortion becomes both it's monolith and the litmus test within white American Catholicism. That positioning has been conceded almost entirely to elements in the GOP which has bastardised what I personally consider to be an absolutist and dystopic view on the issue, but one with some semblance of a systemic consistency, without committing to the social change and social system that the Church would argue is required in order to underpin the policy and support the end result of implicating it.

So you have a bit of a feedback loop. Conservative and reactionary Catholics (and worse; conservative evangelicals who now oversee THE ISSUE) can say with confidence that as long as they hold 'x' position on abortion and chuck in 'x' position on the gays for good measure, they can claim more credibility as a Right Catholic (as opposed to 'good'.. as I doubt the pretence is there these days) and at times fettered by a number of vocal bishops, than say a welfarist generic Dem that holds nuanced positions on the other issues, despite those being broadly held by a sizable number of lay Catholics.

You couldn't take that pedestal here. There is absolutely no difference in the Church position, merely the platforms open to it (none) but Catholic support for abortion has converged with and tracked only marginally behind the national average over the past decades. The same is actually true in the US; it's just the difference in how the public arena weighs these things. And the platform available to the insufferable reactionary Catholic journo clique on adjacent insufferable right wing conservative Christian outlets.

[Georg Ebner]

    While the term "scripture and tradition" is often used to qualify Roman Catholic views on source of truth, I would describe the Orthodox understanding as "scripture through tradition". In this view, the Bible is the only true form of revelation that God gives to mankind. However, the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgments of the councils tell us how to interpret the Scriptures, and the correct interpretation is that which has been upheld by a consensus of the Church Fathers over the past 2,000 years.

As an old-fashioned Roman Catholic i am also unhappy with the "scripture and tradition" WestRome has used in the recent past. But contrary to Your "scripture through tradition" St.AUGUSTINE is - as always... - right with His "The real Bible can be found on the pages of the Church's history", i.e. it's the way round, the Bible is a product of the Church/tradition! Thus it's per se not wrong, when EastRome uses a.f.a.i.k. also for the NT Masoretic texts!

[Associate Justice PiT]

    While the term "scripture and tradition" is often used to qualify Roman Catholic views on source of truth, I would describe the Orthodox understanding as "scripture through tradition". In this view, the Bible is the only true form of revelation that God gives to mankind. However, the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgments of the councils tell us how to interpret the Scriptures, and the correct interpretation is that which has been upheld by a consensus of the Church Fathers over the past 2,000 years.

As an old-fashioned Roman Catholic i am also unhappy with the "scripture and tradition" WestRome has used in the recent past. But contrary to Your "scripture through tradition" St.AUGUSTINE is - as always... - right with His "The real Bible can be found on the pages of the Church's history", i.e. it's the way round, the Bible is a product of the Church/tradition! Thus it's per se not wrong, when EastRome uses a.f.a.i.k. also for the NT Masoretic texts!

     I definitely agree it is the best argument that we can make against sola scriptura tendencies to describe the Bible as being a product of the Church's liturgical tradition and thus incoherent to try and read it divorced from that tradition. At the same time, I am puzzled by what you mean by using Masoretic texts for the NT. Do you mean that they are using Hebrew manuscripts as a basis for New Testament translations? That would be news to me.

[Georg Ebner]

    While the term "scripture and tradition" is often used to qualify Roman Catholic views on source of truth, I would describe the Orthodox understanding as "scripture through tradition". In this view, the Bible is the only true form of revelation that God gives to mankind. However, the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgments of the councils tell us how to interpret the Scriptures, and the correct interpretation is that which has been upheld by a consensus of the Church Fathers over the past 2,000 years.

As an old-fashioned Roman Catholic i am also unhappy with the "scripture and tradition" WestRome has used in the recent past. But contrary to Your "scripture through tradition" St.AUGUSTINE is - as always... - right with His "The real Bible can be found on the pages of the Church's history", i.e. it's the way round, the Bible is a product of the Church/tradition! Thus it's per se not wrong, when EastRome uses a.f.a.i.k. also for the NT Masoretic texts!

     I definitely agree it is the best argument that we can make against sola scriptura tendencies to describe the Bible as being a product of the Church's liturgical tradition and thus incoherent to try and read it divorced from that tradition. At the same time, I am puzzled by what you mean by using Masoretic texts for the NT. Do you mean that they are using Hebrew manuscripts as a basis for New Testament translations? That would be news to me.

No, an orthodox priest, who lectures at a priestSeminary, wrote, that EastRome has done the same as the Jews, i.e. purged texts by experts.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    While the term "scripture and tradition" is often used to qualify Roman Catholic views on source of truth, I would describe the Orthodox understanding as "scripture through tradition". In this view, the Bible is the only true form of revelation that God gives to mankind. However, the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgments of the councils tell us how to interpret the Scriptures, and the correct interpretation is that which has been upheld by a consensus of the Church Fathers over the past 2,000 years.

As an old-fashioned Roman Catholic i am also unhappy with the "scripture and tradition" WestRome has used in the recent past. But contrary to Your "scripture through tradition" St.AUGUSTINE is - as always... - right with His "The real Bible can be found on the pages of the Church's history", i.e. it's the way round, the Bible is a product of the Church/tradition! Thus it's per se not wrong, when EastRome uses a.f.a.i.k. also for the NT Masoretic texts!

     I definitely agree it is the best argument that we can make against sola scriptura tendencies to describe the Bible as being a product of the Church's liturgical tradition and thus incoherent to try and read it divorced from that tradition. At the same time, I am puzzled by what you mean by using Masoretic texts for the NT. Do you mean that they are using Hebrew manuscripts as a basis for New Testament translations? That would be news to me.

No, an orthodox priest, who lectures at a priestSeminary, wrote, that EastRome has done the same as the Jews, i.e. purged texts by experts.

     Do you have a link? I would need to read about this specifically.

[Georg Ebner]

    While the term "scripture and tradition" is often used to qualify Roman Catholic views on source of truth, I would describe the Orthodox understanding as "scripture through tradition". In this view, the Bible is the only true form of revelation that God gives to mankind. However, the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgments of the councils tell us how to interpret the Scriptures, and the correct interpretation is that which has been upheld by a consensus of the Church Fathers over the past 2,000 years.

As an old-fashioned Roman Catholic i am also unhappy with the "scripture and tradition" WestRome has used in the recent past. But contrary to Your "scripture through tradition" St.AUGUSTINE is - as always... - right with His "The real Bible can be found on the pages of the Church's history", i.e. it's the way round, the Bible is a product of the Church/tradition! Thus it's per se not wrong, when EastRome uses a.f.a.i.k. also for the NT Masoretic texts!

     I definitely agree it is the best argument that we can make against sola scriptura tendencies to describe the Bible as being a product of the Church's liturgical tradition and thus incoherent to try and read it divorced from that tradition. At the same time, I am puzzled by what you mean by using Masoretic texts for the NT. Do you mean that they are using Hebrew manuscripts as a basis for New Testament translations? That would be news to me.

No, an orthodox priest, who lectures at a priestSeminary, wrote, that EastRome has done the same as the Jews, i.e. purged texts by experts.

     Do you have a link? I would need to read about this specifically.

No, i don't know His (electronic) mail-address and also not His exact name. But perhaps a deacone meant on an orthodox forum the same and referred then to this:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Синодальный_перевод

[Associate Justice PiT]

    While the term "scripture and tradition" is often used to qualify Roman Catholic views on source of truth, I would describe the Orthodox understanding as "scripture through tradition". In this view, the Bible is the only true form of revelation that God gives to mankind. However, the writings of the Church Fathers and the judgments of the councils tell us how to interpret the Scriptures, and the correct interpretation is that which has been upheld by a consensus of the Church Fathers over the past 2,000 years.

As an old-fashioned Roman Catholic i am also unhappy with the "scripture and tradition" WestRome has used in the recent past. But contrary to Your "scripture through tradition" St.AUGUSTINE is - as always... - right with His "The real Bible can be found on the pages of the Church's history", i.e. it's the way round, the Bible is a product of the Church/tradition! Thus it's per se not wrong, when EastRome uses a.f.a.i.k. also for the NT Masoretic texts!

     I definitely agree it is the best argument that we can make against sola scriptura tendencies to describe the Bible as being a product of the Church's liturgical tradition and thus incoherent to try and read it divorced from that tradition. At the same time, I am puzzled by what you mean by using Masoretic texts for the NT. Do you mean that they are using Hebrew manuscripts as a basis for New Testament translations? That would be news to me.

No, an orthodox priest, who lectures at a priestSeminary, wrote, that EastRome has done the same as the Jews, i.e. purged texts by experts.

     Do you have a link? I would need to read about this specifically.

No, i don't know His (electronic) mail-address and also not His exact name. But perhaps a deacone meant on an orthodox forum the same and referred then to this:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Синодальный_перевод

     Hmm, interesting. I will note that the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate serve in Church Slavonic and not modern Russian though, and the authorized Bible they use is the Elizabeth Bible 1756, which translates its Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint. The Synodal Bible thus can be considered "less authoritative", but it is nevertheless notable that the Holy Synod of Moscow blessed them to translate from the Hebrew texts for this version. Doing a little digging online, I see that the Synodal Bible retains the deuterocanonical texts as well, even though those are not part of the Masoretic.