Authority of the Bible vs. Tradition

[lacoloratura]

My non-Catholic husband and I are involved in ongoing debates about why Catholics believe what we do. I am constantly bewildered by his logic, and am hoping that someone out there can help me with this. I am a terrible debater, and usually end up feeling out-argued because I can’t answer his questions - no matter how much research I’ve done ahead of time.

Anyhow, the question of the moment is this: Although the Catholic Church is the human institution which put the Bible together, and their intent was to add this written authority to the oral Tradition that already existed, my husband doesn’t see this as confirmation that oral Tradition is legitimate. He believes (I think I have this right) that it actually supports the argument that oral Tradition is fallible, because the Holy Spirit’s intent in inspiring the Bible’s creation was to give us a complete written resource for knowing God’s will. In other words, it was to help us weed out the stuff that wasn’t true or necessary. And therefore, if the Bible doesn’t say it’s okay, then it’s not okay.

Anyone have any help for me on this?

 

[1ke]

lacoloratura:

.

the Holy Spirit’s intent in inspiring the Bible’s creation was to give us a complete written resource for knowing God’s will.
Anyone have any help for me on this?

Well, first I’d ask him to give me the Scripture that supports this statement-- this NOT found in the bible, therefore it is self-contradictory. The bible says Scripture is profitable, not sufficient. The bible NOWHERE says the intent of the Holy Spirit was to create a complete written resource for knowing God’s will. I’d like to see him prove this “intent” from Scripture. As a matter of fact, the bible explicitly states that it is NOT a complete record:

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

However, while he cannot show from the Bible his premise, you can point to the opposite… Scripture & Tradition are held in the same regard…

2 Thessolonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter

And, even if Scripture were sufficient, which it isn’t, it would still require an interpreter: Acts 8: 30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”

And, the Bible states that it is the CHURCH that is the pillar and foundation of Truth, 1 Tim 3:15.

 

[Emmaus]

lacoloratura,

The Church is not a human institution. It is the Body of Christ and if it is an institution of any kind it is a Divine institution with human members but also with a divine founder, Jesus Christ. He founded His Church and gave it His authority in Matthew 16:18-19 and assured it that the holy Spirit would lead it to “all truth” in John 16:13. Your husband, without even being aware of it, accepts at least one part of Scared Tradition. That is: the canon of the Bible which he holds dear. The Bible, Old and New Testament is collection of separate books which did not come with a table of contents. It was the Church in Council, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which discerned and identified the canon of the Bible. Your husband can trust in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible only in so far as he accepts the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit and its infalibity acting within the Magesterium of the Church which gave him the canon of his Bible, especially the New Testament canon, about which there is no dispute.

That being said, I usally recommend against ongoing debates between husband and wives on some subjects. Most husband thrive on argument and debate and usually get the best of it. Unfortunately they can argue and debate themselves right out of a marriage or quench the spirit of love and affection in their wives.
Only later do they figure out that it is better to be married or have a happy wife than to be right or the winner in all debates.

I would recomend that you ask you husband to read Dei Verbum from Vatican II and also the sections from the Catechism on Divine Revelation. They are not long and I have given the links below. Then I would simply say that is what you believe and that the Church makes a better case for you than you on your own, and that you are as free in conscience to accept it as he is to reject it. I would then gently advise him that you do not want to continue debating the question, lest it become a source of bitterness between you.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm

198.62.75.1/www1/CDHN/profess2.html#MEET

198.62.75.1/www1/CDHN/profess3.html#FULLNESS

198.62.75.1/www1/CDHN/profess4.html#SCRIPTURE

 

[yinekka]

You write that you and your husband are involved in ‘ongoing debates’ . I think that there is a problem right there. Debates have a winner and a loser; the winner feels good and the loser feels …well, like a loser. If your purpose in sharing your Faith with your husband is to convert him to the true Faith then stop debating and start witnessing your Faith.

The first and most important thing you must do is pray. Patrick Madrid in ‘Search and Rescue’ says that we must spend as much time praying for the person as we spend sharing the truths of the Faith with them. Remember, you are the instrument of the Holy Spirit. You may plant the seed of conversion but the harvester isJesus and He will do it in His own time.

Secondly be a witness to the joy you feel by being a Catholic by your actions. Let your husband see that the love of Christ just shines from you. It was said of the first Christians ‘look how they love one another.’

Thirdly, when you wish to share your Faith with your husband remember Peter’s exhortion: ‘Always be prepared to make defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.’ 1 Peter 3:15
If you do succeed in demolishing your husband’s argument that doesn’t mean that you will have won a convert; it may just make him more determined to ‘stump you’ next time.

I don’t know how to do the quote thing
"
He believes (I think I have this right) that it actually supports the argument that oral Tradition is fallible, because the Holy Spirit’s intent in inspiring the Bible’s creation was to give us a complete written resource for knowing God’s will. In other words, it was to help us weed out the stuff that wasn’t true or necessary. And therefore, if the Bible doesn’t say it’s okay, then it’s not okay."

I think that the words ‘he believes’ are key words. He believes that his interpretation of scripture is right. Catholics believe that the Church which Christ founded was entrusted with both oral Tradition and Scripture to help preach the Gospel.’ As Catholics we believe that God’s Revelationto the Church is preserved via two different but mutually complimentary modes: in written form (Scripture) and in oral form (Tradition.)’ ‘Where is that in the Bible?’ Patrick Madrid The Deposit of Faith is both ‘preached’ and written. Remember that the first Gospel wasn’t written until about 30 years after Jesus’ death and that the last wasn’t written until about 60 years after Jesus’ death. The converts in the first 30 years would have had the letters of St Paul and the oral teaching of the apostles.

Patrick Madrid gives the following references from Scripture to support the above:
Luke 1 1:1-4, John 20: 30-31, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, John 21:25, Acts 20,35,1 Corinthians 11:2, Mark 16:15,1 Corinthians; 1-2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Timothy 1:13, 1 Timothy 1:19020, 2 Timothy 2:2, 1 Peter1:25, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Oral Transmission of the Faith. Not Just Written Transmission
2 John 12, 3 John 13, John 20:30, 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-3:6
2 Timothy 3:14, 1 John 2:24, Jude 17.

All of the above quotes are taken from "Where is That in the Bible?’ Patrick Madrid

All the very best and please remember it’s not a debate.

 

[lacoloratura]

I do pray, constantly. Unfortunately, this (coupled with another huge problem that I would like to post in another thread) is leading us into divorce. Not the debates themselves, but the fact that he is not Catholic and I am. I try very hard to avoid this situation where we’re trying to convince each other of our beliefs, but it does sometimes happen when I’m trying to defend mine in the face of his lack of understand of why I can’t compromise on some faith issues. Does that make sense? I really feel like this is a no-win situation. It’s probably in great part my fault for being unable to let go of things when they get to this point.

The hardest thing for me to cope with is his (for me unanswerable) question, “If getting to heaven is the point of it all, and you don’t have to be Catholic to get to heaven*, then why does it matter what the details of our beliefs are?”

*It’s my understanding that the Church teaches that the RCC is the best way to work towards heaven (and the easiest way to achieve it) because it contains all the truth and all the things that can help us get there, but that salvation can be attained by other Christians as well. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[metal1633]

lacoloratura:

because the Holy Spirit’s intent in inspiring the Bible’s creation was to give us a complete written resource for knowing God’s will. In other words, it was to help us weed out the stuff that wasn’t true or necessary. And therefore, if the Bible doesn’t say it’s okay, then it’s not okay.

Anyone have any help for me on this?

Interesting that the bible doesnt say that the Holy Spirits “Intent” was to creat a book. It says quite the opposite.

Ask your husband what this means, because it sounds like the “Intent” was to preserve His Word by word of mouth…

Isa 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

lacoloratura:

I do pray, constantly. Unfortunately, this (coupled with another huge problem that I would like to post in another thread) is leading us into divorce. Not the debates themselves, but the fact that he is not Catholic and I am. I try very hard to avoid this situation where we’re trying to convince each other of our beliefs, but it does sometimes happen when I’m trying to defend mine in the face of his lack of understand of why I can’t compromise on some faith issues. Does that make sense? I really feel like this is a no-win situation. It’s probably in great part my fault for being unable to let go of things when they get to this point.

Good news! You dont have to have super logic to win an argument with a protestant on sola scriptura. You can solve your problem with simple logic, but the rest is up to your husband if he wants to accept the truth or not.

Do not let him run away or change the subject from the key topic of authority!

Interpretation of scripture can only fall into two categories, personal opinion, or authority. You can never lose an arguement with a protestant Christian if you stick to this argument of authority.

Say for example two people read the Bible and arrive at two different beliefs. Some protestants claim that those different beliefs dont matter because they are usually minor. However, that still does not invalidate the need for authority. How do we know what is major and minor issues? Again, this is why we have 35,000+ different protestant denominations. Just like in the legal system of courts, their must always be a final interpreter of the law. For Catholics, the final authority is the Pope.

The hardest thing for me to cope with is his (for me unanswerable) question, “If getting to heaven is the point of it all, and you don’t have to be Catholic to get to heaven*, then why does it matter what the details of our beliefs are?”

*It’s my understanding that the Church teaches that the RCC is the best way to work towards heaven (and the easiest way to achieve it) because it contains all the truth and all the things that can help us get there, but that salvation can be attained by other Christians as well. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

We all want to go to heaven, but that is not the point of life! Only thinking about going to heaven is a false god between you and Jesus. A perfect act of contrition is not becuse we fear hell, but becuase we have offended God.

Loving Jesus Christ the point of life!

God created us to be in paradise, but ***not for ** * paradise. He created us for Him!

Hope this helps.

 

[yinekka]

If you and your husband are on the brink of divorce because of religious differences it might be time for you to obtain good, Faithful spiritual direction. I am sure that a good, Faithful priest will be able to help you keep your marriage.

I will be praying for you.

 

[BobCatholic]

lacoloratura:

Anyhow, the question of the moment is this: Although the Catholic Church is the human institution which put the Bible together, and their intent was to add this written authority to the oral Tradition that already existed, my husband doesn’t see this as confirmation that oral Tradition is legitimate.

If oral tradition is not legitimate, then he will have trouble answering my infamous 4 questions:

Using Scripture alone:

1. Where does it say in the Bible that the new testament is to have 27 books?
2. Where does it say in the Bible which books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say in the Bible which versions of the books belonging in the NT is the correct one? For example: The Gospel of Matthew had 3 versions: one with 8 chapters worth of text, another with 18 chaters and a third with 28 chapters.
4. Where does it say which translation of the books in the NT is the correct one?

The only way to answer these questions is not to turn to Scripture alone (circular argument results, as well as other logical problems) but to get the answers from an oral tradition that existed prior to these 4 questions being answered in the councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome (382-405AD), using an Authoritative Church that made this declaration.

 

[lacoloratura]

SocaliCatholic:

We all want to go to heaven, but that is not the point of life! Only thinking about going to heaven is a false god between you and Jesus. A perfect act of contrition is not becuse we fear hell, but becuase we have offended God.

Loving Jesus Christ the point of life!

God created us to be in paradise, but ***not for ***paradise. He created us for Him!

Hope this helps.

Yes, it does help - but I can confidently say that his response to “loving Jesus Christ is the point of life” would be the same: why does it matter which church we do that in?

 

[trogiah]

“Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

This is from Chapter 5 of Matthew. I find the wording interesting and subtle.

Note that those who “break the least of the commandments” are not prohibited from entering the kingdom but simply are not as great as others in that kingdom.

I believe your husband is right in saying that “getting into heaven” does not strictly depend on which denomination of church you attend. When Jesus was asked how to obtain eternal life, his first response was the basic fundamental commandments of not murdering, lying, stealing, adultery, etc.

The point to being in a particular church is Unity. Unity among the peoples of the world and Unity within a family. Without Unity, without common purpose, any group of people, even a husband and wife, risk losing any connection they may have,

I would suggest that for the sake of unity, attending the church your husband would prefer might not be unthinkable. Two great recent popes have stated “That which divides us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us.”

You haven’t said if children are present. That could make a difference.

The difference between the different denominations don’t have to be settled within your marriage. All you absolutely need is a working relationship with Jesus. If you can keep that, trying to hold on to a marriage would seem like possibly the next highest priority rather than clinging to any particular denomination - even that of the Catholic Church.

I know this probably sounds almost like heresy to some but I believe it is possible to attend a different church without giving up ones faith in the one true church. The unity of a family is not something to give up lightly

Anyway, good luck, my prayers are with you.
-Jim

 

[Character_Zero]

lacoloratura:

He believes (I think I have this right) that it actually supports the argument that oral Tradition is fallible, because the Holy Spirit’s intent in inspiring the Bible’s creation was to give us a complete written resource for knowing God’s will. In other words, it was to help us weed out the stuff that wasn’t true or necessary. And therefore, if the Bible doesn’t say it’s okay, then it’s not okay.

Lets analyze this. If the Bible is the “complete written resource for knowing God’s will” then why doesn’t the Bible make that statement about itself???

Also, if the Bible is all thats needed, does he think that the Church lost its authority when it assembled it?
Why would God take authority away from something he gave it to (that would be what God was doing if his scenario were true)??
In the early centuries the Church did so much to prevent heresies, especially Christological ones. Did they not have authority in those deciding councils? Or only when the Bible was put together? (2 councils I believe)