|
|
|
|
|
|
by lo_zamoyski
400 days ago
|
|
|
> It’s a harder read than lots of books that the median reader struggles to understand, let alone enjoy enough to actually make it through. [...] Most folks lack basically all historical context for the tales in it, and the book itself This is why the Catholic Church speaks of both tradition and scripture. You need the lens of unbroken tradition to interpret scripture, as tradition is the cumulative knowledge over millennia (including period context) that allows for the possibility for grounded interpretation (never mind interpreting from bad translations). Indeed, tradition precedes canonical scripture historically: consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries. Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0]. The tacit doctrine at play is often that of perspicuity, which, given the endless proliferation of Protestant sects, would seems at the very least highly suspect. [0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/logic-and-pr... |
|
|
> consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries.
Yes, but the older testament was already well established, and the documents of the new testament were available. The Council made a firm decision of which ones were canon, but they were all documents which were already widely read.
There are other Biblical canons and they do not, in themselves, greatly change the doctrine.
> Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0].
A lot of protestant churches are prima scriptura, not sola scriptura.