T
Truthstalker
Guest
The Septuagint was widely used.
“If the Bible didn’t exist”…is like saying "If Jesus hadn’t come…
Please read what I have written more carefully.
- Status
“If the Bible didn’t exist”…is like saying "If Jesus hadn’t come…
Please read what I have written more carefully.
J
jmcrae
Guest
This Word is not the Bible; it’s the person of Jesus Christ.
This is quite obviously incorrect, since there are many things that are quite explicit in our Holy Tradition that, although they don’t contradict Scripture, and can be supported to some extent by Scripture, yet they aren’t found explicitly in Scripture. Examples include the canon of Scripture itself, the teaching on the Trinity, the teaching on the Hypostatic Union of Christ, and other things like that. Not to mention a great many things concerning the angels, Our Lady, and the Saints.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Two things: one, is that I agree with you that I misapplied the passage. Thanks for pointing that out.
Secondly, there are many things that are not spelled out in Scripture that necessarily follow from it, including the canon, the Trinity, and the Hypostatic Union. The canon is deduced from listing what the inspired books are. The Trinity is an outworking of what the Bible says. The Hypostatic Union is the result of a long and arduous discussion over centuries until it was understood.
Much of Tradition can be understood as the right working out of what the Bible says: the consensus of the Fathers on what it means is X. This part of Tradition is actually not any sort of an independent revelation but is a direct consequence of what the Bible says, coupled with Holy Spirit-guided reasoning and inspiration in getting the Church to where He wanted to go.
But there is the other side of Tradition, one about which Scripture is either neutral or silent. Every Catholic apologist soon becomes acquainted with the Orthodox view of “Thou art Peter,” for example. There is the Catholic opnion of what it means, and Tradition is called upon to elicit that. But others read it and come up with a different interpretation. Those are “neutral” passages that can be taken either way. Some of us Protestants seem to be maddeningly bulletproof to Catholic prooftexts: what is the matter, you wonder, why can’t they see what is so obvious? Some verses are ambiguous.
There are matters about which Scripture is silent. Does Freeman, Missouri exist? It’s not in the Bible, as far as I can tell, unless it is the prophetic fulfillment of the ends of the earth. More seriously, the account of what happened to Mary after Acts 1 is missing. Scripture is silent. If Scripture is silent, then it does not speak authoritatively on something, and so one is not bound to what Scripture says. But Tradition is bound to being in agreement with Scripture. We know what Scripture says; we know the text and its limits, but we do not always know what Tradition says. One way to determine what Tradition says is to compare it to Scripture.
JF - I don’t follow your post. Please explain.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No problem - it’s an easy mistake to make. You’re in good company - Jerry Falwell once did a whole sermon one time on how God sent the Bible to earth, using John 1 as his text.Two things: one, is that I agree with you that I misapplied the passage. Thanks for pointing that out.
Actually, these things precede the text, but I take your meaning.
This information comes from Holy Tradition. We have the Scriptures because the Holy Tradition tells us about them, and gives us the canon. It’s impossible to derive the canon from the Scriptures themselves.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey, here. In any case, the Trinity was defined several decades before the canon of Scripture - the Athanasian Creed, which precedes the Nicene, contains the “what to memorize” bit with regard to that. As you know, the Council of Nicea occurred nearly 80 years before the final canon of Scripture was formally defined.
An example of the Magesterium at work; this has nothing to do with Scripture. The Magesterium helps us to define and understand the various elements of the Holy Tradition.
Actually it’s the other way around - we get the Scriptures from Tradition - Tradition came first. The Early Fathers were trying to understand the Holy Tradition; not the Scriptures. They used the Scriptures as only one of many resources in helping them formulate their ideas - they usually didn’t start quoting it until after they had their ideas in order, and knew what they wanted to say. They didn’t look to the Scriptures to answer their questions; rather, they looked to the Scriptures to summarize their answers after they’d figured out the meaning of the particular Tradition that they were grappling with. But they relied on the Oral Tradition to find the answers in the first place.
K
kellie
Guest
The Assumption of Mary is a Catholic Tradition.
It does not conflict with the Bible, as there is no mention of what happened to Mary in the Bible.
Therefore, by your OP, if it doesn’t conflict with the Bible it is Tradition.
However, those who believe in Sola Scriptura would argue against the Assumption of Mary as it isn’t in the Bible.
They only go by what is in the Bible.
It does not conflict with the Bible, as there is no mention of what happened to Mary in the Bible.
Therefore, by your OP, if it doesn’t conflict with the Bible it is Tradition.
However, those who believe in Sola Scriptura would argue against the Assumption of Mary as it isn’t in the Bible.
They only go by what is in the Bible.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Lots of things don’t conflict with the Bible but are not Tradition. Newtonian mechanics, for one, or how to cook an egg.
Sola Scriptura regards the Bible as the ultimate authority we have, not the sole authority and only on subjects on which it speaks. It allows other authorities to exist in a subordinate role.
A good case for Mary’s Assumption can be made from the Bible alone. Not conclusively, but with some degree of plausibility.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I would like to see your proof for some of your assertions.
The ECF were trying to understand both, I think, and how to confront the problems the church was facing of whatever sort. Scripture was extensively quoted in dealing with the problems, and not in a subordinate role but rather as a source if not the source of authority. 1 Clement, for example, is mainly Bible quotes.
Am I right in thinking Catholics are stating that they regard Tradition as more authoritative than the Scriptures? Is this in line with the Catechism? Much of what I have written has not been responded to.
The Old Testament was written long before any of the apostles were born, thus before anything the apostles handed down to the next generation had started that was different from what the Jews had been doing. Are you stating there was no break between the Jewish traditions of men and the apostolic traditions? The early Church had the Old Testament.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Um - no, it isn’t. I have it in front of me right now, and yes, he does make reference to various events that are also recorded in the New Testament, but he isn’t actually quoting Scripture; he’s recounting things that he heard St. Paul talking about. Some of which are also recounted in St. Paul’s letters, but he’s not actually reading and copying from those letters; he’s retelling it in his own words.
The majority of his letter is actually lamenting the situation in Corinth that was going on at the time, pulling a major guilt trip on them (we’ve worked so hard for your salvation, some people were even martyred on your behalf, and this is how you treat us?? Paraphrasing here, of course - he goes on like that for several paragraphs). This is followed by a lovely little homily on love, repentance, and submission to Church authority, with the assurance of forgiveness if they but do these few simple things, followed by a very short warning that they will cut themselves off from the household of God (that is, be excommunicated from the Church) if they fail in so doing, and followed again by lavish reassurances of forgiveness and peace, if they will humbly submit to the authority of their priests, make good Confessions, and be restored to the good graces of the Church.
The Scriptures are part of the Tradition - they aren’t something separate from it. The whole of the Tradition was oral, to begin with, and later on, some of it (but not all of it) was recorded in the Gospels and letters of the Apostles and their closest followers.
True they had the Old Testament, but there was a whole oral culture that supported their understanding of the Old Testament. Even today, you don’t normally find Jews sitting alone in their rooms reading the Bible. They hear it read out at the Synagogue, and it’s a large part of their tradition, but not the whole of their tradition, just as both the Old and New Testaments are for Catholics.
Not all of the Jewish traditions were “traditions of men.” The Old Covenant, including all of its feast days, laws, and rituals, came from God. The only things that were “traditions of men” were abuses of the traditions that had been given to the Jews by God. In the New Covenant, those Old Covenant traditions are renewed and changed - circumcision (a covenant sign) becomes Baptism (an Initiation Sacrament); the Passover becomes the Mass, the Levitical priesthood with its bloody animal sacrifices becomes the Christian priesthood, offering up bread and wine after the example of Melchizedek, (at Christ’s own command) in exchange for Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the Cross.
And everything that came with it. The Jews were not (and still are not) “bible alone,” and neither was the Early Church.
In a weird manner of speaking, Catholics believe in both Sola Scriptura and Sola Tradition. Sacred Tradition is always in conformity with and never contradicts the Bible. And the Bible explicitly commands Sacred Tradition. So using Sola Scriptura, we believe in Tradition.
However we don’t know what Scriptura is without the Tradition. Therefore we have the authority of the Bible only by virtue of the Church’s pronoucements. The Bible canon is itself a Tradition, hence we believe in Sola Tradition.
I gotta go knock myself on the head. Please disregard this entire post.
However we don’t know what Scriptura is without the Tradition. Therefore we have the authority of the Bible only by virtue of the Church’s pronoucements. The Bible canon is itself a Tradition, hence we believe in Sola Tradition.
I gotta go knock myself on the head. Please disregard this entire post.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
In light of some of these posts, I’m going to have to dig a little (like find and read 1 Clement again, and study the Catechism some more) before I try again to defend what seems to be an indefensible statement…
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I read over the section in the Catechism on Scripture and Tradition and then read over this thread again. Now I am confused.
The Catechism specifically states that Scripture and Tradition are not the same thing. The way I read it, Scripture is NOT part of Tradition. To me the Catechism seems to suggest that Scripture is like the noun and Tradition the verb of the Word of God Who is Christ. The one is set, the other is living; the one is finite, the other continues and acts. Yet people keep saying Scripture is part of Tradition.
I think a better translation of “Tradition” would be “Transmission”. To my ears “Tradition” suggests a fixed body of beliefs that stand in contrast or alternative to Scripture, which may be why so many Protestants have trouble with it. It is not just the oral stuff the apostles didn’t write down, but a whole lot more, and continues today. The living “Transmission” transmits the Word of God into the world today. In contrast when you tell me of church tradition it suggests something dead and man made, something it would be wise to shun.
Comments?
The Catechism specifically states that Scripture and Tradition are not the same thing. The way I read it, Scripture is NOT part of Tradition. To me the Catechism seems to suggest that Scripture is like the noun and Tradition the verb of the Word of God Who is Christ. The one is set, the other is living; the one is finite, the other continues and acts. Yet people keep saying Scripture is part of Tradition.
I think a better translation of “Tradition” would be “Transmission”. To my ears “Tradition” suggests a fixed body of beliefs that stand in contrast or alternative to Scripture, which may be why so many Protestants have trouble with it. It is not just the oral stuff the apostles didn’t write down, but a whole lot more, and continues today. The living “Transmission” transmits the Word of God into the world today. In contrast when you tell me of church tradition it suggests something dead and man made, something it would be wise to shun.
Comments?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
That happens to you also?Ok.
Seems like every time I turn around, SOMEBODY wants to turn whatever thread I am on into a Sola Scriptura thread. This here is a Sola Scriptura thread.
Here is the strange part. When I started a thread on sola Scriptura then they only wanted to talk about the canon. :banghead:
R
rtconstant
Guest
By those that could read yes.
I would think that a bit of an overstatement. The Bible is not equal to Jesus. If Jesus had not come there would be no Church. We’d either be pagan or Jewish. If the Bible hadn’t of been given Christianity would still be here and could still flourish.
The Bible must be viewed from the standpoint of doctrine otherwise one can draw any number of conclusions from it. When the early Christian looked at the Septuagint, tradition gave them the lens through which to view and understand it. Jews have had the scriptures we use in the OT for thousands of years longer than we have and yet they draw very different ideas from it. Why? Their own traditions give them a lens that views the scriptures differently.
The Bible is a gift and a treasure but it is not the basis for The Church only Christ has that distinction.
All that being said, I do think that the OP is interesting. While in terms of doctrinal definition Catholics would not be SS, in practice you could actually say that we are. After all any SS denomination will itself bow to it’s own tradition in order to understand Sacred Scripture. In practice evangelicals do the same thing we do, we just say so up front
J
JaneFrances
Guest
I’ll try. . .
You said:
I say, nay. Neither Tradition nor Scripture is “subordinate.”
As the Catechism states:
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 moves 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.” (CCC #80)
The two, Tradition and Scripture, are distinct. Yet, they are not competitive.
I believe your heirarchical notion, is derived from the implicit reliance between Tradition and Scripture. Where Protestants would view this reliance as a beam on a post, Catholics see the Gothic flying buttresses.
My point in my previous post was to suggest that the “Tradition does not contradict the Bible” apology is more of a reactionary tool rather than a doctrinal explanation. It does not reflect the true nature of the relationship between these two. Instead, it is a necessary defense against the Protestant suspicion of Tradition, using the common acceptance of Scripture as first step.
My previous post also was a sort of stream of consciousness which led to my thought that perhaps this quasi-doctrinal stance “Tradition does not contradict the Bible” has served Catholics about as well as “Sola Scriptura” has served Protestants. Neither says exactly what we intend for it to say, so we have endless discussions and clarifications in the hopes that one day we can widdle them down to a fiber more digestable to the other camp. They are tools, not Truth in its fullness.
C
cazayoux
Guest
“Widely used” does not equal an agreed upon canon for all Jews.
Your next statement reads “is like” when that is in no way the case.
Jesus is THE Word. He exists even if nothing was ever written down. He came to teach, not to write.
The answer is that Jesus’ church existed before one word of the New Testament was ever written.
In that church, how does Sola Scriptura fit?
You alluded to the old testament sciptures during this time.
If the old testament scripures were enough for Jesus’ church then, why is more than that necessary now.
My view is that the new testament writings and canon were a gift from God through His Holy Church (whether or not you agree that this was the Catholic Church is a different discussion).
Sola Scriptura (literally, Scripture Alone) cannot exist in light of the history of His Church between His resurrection and the first new testament writings.
michel
K
kaycee
Guest
You need to find out what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Not many here want to know, its easier for them to fight straw men.
R
rtconstant
Guest
More accurately it should be said that Sola Scriptura is a moving and amorphic target whoes definition changes and adjusts depending on the person and the argument at hand. Most people who even supposedly believe in it really have no definition or basis for it. They do however seem to know what it doesn’t mean. Which is to say it seems to never mean what someone arguing against it says it means even they’re pulling from an official defintion of one group or another.
SS, seems to more or less be a phantom doctrine that allows one to believe whatever they want, and so it changes to allow for that in any given scenario.
J
jburgherr
Guest
Jesus did not come down from heaven and hand Peter a bunch of scrolls and say…“Here you go…This is what I wanted to teach you.” …and then vaporized back into the clouds. He came, lived among the disciples, taught by His example and by parable. The Word was spoken and received through the ears of the Apostles.
The apostles, for decades kept Christianity alive only through the faithful retelling of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Only after much time did they put down in writing what later became understood as the Gospels. (Sacred Tradition)
Christianity survived hundreds of years with only Sacred Tradition. No canon of the Bible existed. The Bible then only came to exist because the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church told us what is to be contained in it.
Sacred Tradition, without dispute, came first.
So this thread should be turned on its ear…the Bible is “biblical” only because it agrees and is in line with what the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church teaches…not the other way around.
The apostles, for decades kept Christianity alive only through the faithful retelling of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Only after much time did they put down in writing what later became understood as the Gospels. (Sacred Tradition)
Christianity survived hundreds of years with only Sacred Tradition. No canon of the Bible existed. The Bible then only came to exist because the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church told us what is to be contained in it.
Sacred Tradition, without dispute, came first.
So this thread should be turned on its ear…the Bible is “biblical” only because it agrees and is in line with what the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church teaches…not the other way around.
C
cazayoux
Guest
I don’t understand why the definition of Sola Scriptura means something other than, literally, “Scripture Alone”.
It’s only two words. It’s a straightforward translation.
If you do not believed in “scripture alone”, then “sola scripture” does not describe your belief.
To state that you believe in Sola Scriptura, but that it means something other than (or more than) “scripture alone”, is ludicrous.
michel
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Catholics believe they are saved by “grace alone”? Does this mean absolutely nothing else is needed? Not even means for communicating this grace(e.g. baptism) or cooperating grace(e.g. good works)?
- Status