Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
michaelp:
Catholics do believe that Scripture and tradition are at least equal to each other. See here for discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37044&highlight=michaelp

Michael
Actually–the CCC states they are inseperable.

CCC 95:
“It is clear therefore that , in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that** one of them cannot stand without the others. **Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

(my emphasis)
 
40.png
michaelp:
Catholics do believe that Scripture and tradition are at least equal to each other. See here for discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37044&highlight=michaelp

And here:

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

What Jeff is saying is that in all confessions, Scripture and Traditon are equal avenues to the one deposit. Some people believe that they are separate, some that they are the same. This is a debate that Catholics are “allowed” to have since the Magisterium have not spoken on the sufficiency of either with clarity (since it is often difficult to interpret magisterial statements). They all believe that they are at least equal.

However, practically speaking, Jeff is saying that Tradition has priority since it must define and interpret Scripture along with the Magisterium (who interprets both). Catholics therefore sometimes confess that Tradition has a certian priority over Scripture.

Therefore, Jeff has not created a straw man. Maybe you disagree with other Roman Catholics on this, but it is still represented by most. Once again, the magisterium is difficult to interpret about this particular issue.

Michael
Thanks mike, you clarified correctly.

Jeff
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Actually–the CCC states they are inseperable.

CCC 95:
“It is clear therefore that , in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that** one of them cannot stand without the others. **Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

(my emphasis)
Based on who’s interpretation? In otherwords if there are two schools of thought then which one is correct? You seem to be functioning on the one. What about the other school of thought in the catholic church?

Jeff
 
40.png
jphilapy:
The catechism says there are two modes. Not one mode but two. Are the modes equal? By their very definition they are. If they were not equal then one would be less than the other or they would be the same exactly in content with no reason to express them as two modes.

Jeff
One source of Revelation, two modes of transmission. They are not juxtaposed in tension – you do understand the concept of “mode?”

One cannot apply “equal” or “superior” to this case, any more than one can apply those concepts to the Persons of the Trinity.
 
40.png
st_felicity:
Actually–the CCC states they are inseperable.

CCC 95:
“It is clear therefore that , in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that** one of them cannot stand without the others. **Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

(my emphasis)
How do you interpret “one of them cannot stand without the others”? There is alot of disagreement concerning this and the material sufficiency and dual-source theories. Which is correct? Hard to interpret this statement of the CCC.

But, that is the subject of another thread as we know. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890)

The point is, I think Jeff understand these issues just fine. I have never thought they are that difficult, do you?

Michael
 
40.png
st_felicity:
You are so funny…you’re joking, right?
They have to be.

Michael cites himself as an authority, and points to the Catholic Answers discussion which refutes Jeff’s false claims about Scripture and Tradition.

Jeff wants to know “who interprets” the Magisterium.

They have to be joking. No one would seriously advance such nonsense.
 
Hello Mickey!

Thanks for posting that. The article goes right to the issue I wanted to address. This is going to take a little space to respond to, so I hope that everyone will not think that I am trying to monopolize the boards here.

First of all, I think the author is making an equivocation on the word “tradition” in the scripture passages he presents. The Greek term paradosis simply means “that which is handed down.” BDAG defines it as “the content of instruction that has been handed down” and Louw and Nida defines it as the “content of traditional instruction.” Hence, then, passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, and 2 Timothy 2:2 are only saying that we are to hold to the teachings which were delivered to each of those individual groups. With regards to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, all this is saying is that the church at Thessolonika received these traditions in two ways: by epistle and word of mouth. This proves only that the word of God was handed down orally at a point in time. No one denies that. The real question is if these traditions passed down orally are, today, extrascriptural or if they are contained in the scriptures themselves. Of course, the text is silent on that issue, and hence, this text cannot be used to support this idea.

Now, I have ran into the material before from the patristic writers. Let me first of all say that we all believe in an apostolic tradition, that is, teachings from the apostles which were handed down. The question is if there are any of those traditions that are extrascriptural. I think that may have been partially my fault.

From what I can gather about the patristic writers, there are at least two usages of the term “tradition.” The first is use is to use it interchangibly with the term “doctrine.” For instance, John 1:1 would be the scripture and “the diety of Christ” would be the tradition just as an example. Let me give some examples from the article:
Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (*Church History *4:21).

He then goes on to talk about these traditions:
His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus1228
was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus,1229 whose deacon was 199Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.” [Church History 4:22:2-3]

Obviously, then, Eusebius was not trying to refer to some extrascriptural tradition, but rather, that which is sound doctrine and that which is preached by the prophets and the lord. That is very consistent with the definition I posted above. The same holds true for Irenaeus as well:
…For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (*Against Heresies *
1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

However, look at what Irenaeus means when he speaks about tradition:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations(6) of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one… [Against Heresies 1:10:1]
Continued
 
vern humphrey:
They have to be.

Michael cites himself as an authority, and points to the Catholic Answers discussion which refutes Jeff’s false claims about Scripture and Tradition.

Jeff wants to know “who interprets” the Magisterium.

They have to be joking. No one would seriously advance such nonsense.
I think that Jeff deserves the respect here. He is obviously serious. Asking questions of “is he serious” “no he can’t be” does not help any discussion.

Michael
 
Great post Martin Luther! Thanks for clarifying this for others.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
How do you interpret “one of them cannot stand without the others”? There is alot of disagreement concerning this and the material sufficiency and dual-source theories. Which is correct? Hard to interpret this statement of the CCC.
Where is this “lot of disagreement?” Give us an example of disagreement between the Catholic Bishops over Scripture and Tradition.
40.png
michaelp:
But, that is the subject of another thread as we know. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890))
Back to citing yourself as an authority on Catholicism, I see.
40.png
michaelp:
The point is, I think Jeff understand these issues just fine. I have never thought they are that difficult, do you?
It appears very difficult to you, because you willfully refuse to understand. But that’s a standard tactic, isn’t it? Remember what it’s called?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
vern humphrey:
They have to be.

Michael cites himself as an authority, and points to the Catholic Answers discussion which refutes Jeff’s false claims about Scripture and Tradition.

Jeff wants to know “who interprets” the Magisterium.

They have to be joking. No one would seriously advance such nonsense.
You can’t be serious that you actually believe all catholics interpret the magisterium the same can you?

Jeff
 
Martin Luther:
Obviously, then, Eusebius was not trying to refer to some extrascriptural tradition, but rather, that which is sound doctrine and that which is preached by the prophets and the lord. That is very consistent with the definition I posted above. The same holds true for Irenaeus as well:
There’s the strawman again – the proposition that Tradition is “extrascriptural.”
 
Where is this “lot of disagreement?” Give us an example of disagreement between the Catholic Bishops over Scripture and Tradition.
This thread demonstrate the disagreement among Catholic concerning the contents and relationship of Tradition to Scripture.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37044&highlight=michaelp

Back to citing yourself as an authority on Catholicism, I see.

YOu need to try to understand the difference between siting various types of EVIDENCE and saying I am the first cause in some contribed AUTHORITY. You must remember, Protestants don’t speak your language when it come to the necessity of an “authority,” we look to the weight of the evidence to demonstrate an accertation.
It appears very difficult to you, because you willfully refuse to understand. But that’s a standard tactic, isn’t it? Remember what it’s called?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Thanks and have a great day,

Michael
 
vern humphrey:
There’s the strawman again – the proposition that Tradition is “extrascriptural.”
This provides nothing to Martin Luther but an unsupported opinion Vern.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
I think that Jeff deserves the respect here. He is obviously serious. Asking questions of “is he serious” “no he can’t be” does not help any discussion.

Michael
You keep going round and round with the same old arguments – arguments which depend on a false statement of Catholic doctrine.

In “Desert Solitare,” Edward Abby tells how he came out of his trailer in the middle of the desert in Arches National Monument (he was working as a Ranger that summer) and sat down one the steps to put his boots on – and saw a rattlesnake between his feet.

Now it was chilly, and the snake was sluggish. He jerked his feet up, managed to jump over the snake, and got a shovel from the shed. He scooped up the snake and – it being illegal to kill anything in a National Monument – took it a quarter mile into the desert and dumped it.

A couple of days later, he came out and saw the snake in the same place. He jumped over it, got the shovel and dumped it a mile out into the desert.

A few days after that, he came out and saw the snake in the same place. He jumped over it, got the shovel and chopped that snake into little pieces.

The moral of this story is, there’s a limit to the number of tines people will tolerate the same trick.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
michaelp:
This thread demonstrate the disagreement among Catholic concerning the contents and relationship of Tradition to Scripture.
You do understand this is the Catholic Church?

The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position is established by the Bishops.

To claim that this little thread of yours proves the Catholic Church is in disagreement is simply dishonest.
40.png
michaelp:
YOu need to try to understand the difference between siting various types of EVIDENCE and saying I am the first cause in some contribed AUTHORITY. You must remember, Protestants don’t speak your language when it come to the necessity of an “authority,” we look to the weight of the evidence to demonstrate an accertation.
If you don’t understand our language and concepts, try learning before preaching. Don’t pull dishonest stunts like citing an informal discussion as proof of the Church’s position!
 
vern humphrey:
You keep going round and round with the same old arguments – arguments which depend on a false statement of Catholic doctrine.

In “Desert Solitare,” Edward Abby tells how he came out of his trailer in the middle of the desert in Arches National Monument (he was working as a Ranger that summer) and sat down one the steps to put his boots on – and saw a rattlesnake between his feet.

Now it was chilly, and the snake was sluggish. He jerked his feet up, managed to jump over the snake, and got a shovel from the shed. He scooped up the snake and – it being illegal to kill anything in a National Monument – took it a quarter mile into the desert and dumped it.

A couple of days later, he came out and saw the snake in the same place. He jumped over it, got the shovel and dumped it a mile out into the desert.

A few days after that, he came out and saw the snake in the same place. He jumped over it, got the shovel and chopped that snake into little pieces.

The moral of this story is, there’s a limit to the number of tines people will tolerate the same trick.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Thank you Vern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top