Thanks for most of the contributions.
I think eventually we are coming closer together, and in fact the only hostile contribution has been by BenjaminJ.
As most are Catholics here, some more expert in the faith, I would not expect fundamental differences. I may be wrong, but if so I hope it is in good faith.
I think this can all be cleared up quite easily.
Sacred Scripture = Sacred Scripture
Tradition = as interpreted by the Church
No change there.
That in a very concise way is what I have been trying to say.
I have quoted Dei Verbum several times. I do not disagree with Pope Paul VI.
Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. (Paul VI, Dei Verbum 1965).
In a sense can tradition and Scripture be considered as tributaries of the same river. Would this help?
Po18Guy references the CCC:
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
Does this differ much from what I am trying to claim?
RandpmAlias gives a reference to the CCC:
_Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."
Does this differ contradict what I am trying to claim about Catholic Revelation being based on the Bible as interpreted by the Church?
Catholic exegesis begins from the point of view of the Tradition of the Church. In other words, we read Sacred Scripture within the context of Sacred Tradition.
This seems to me what I am trying to point out, that we read Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Church.
So when one considers the case deeply, what I am claiming does not differ greatly from what others wrote.
So in conclusion, to write that Catholics believe revelation depends on the Bible as interpreted by the Church is not gross heresy.