Catholics believe in Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
Ok.:rolleyes:

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 are some fightin’ words to start things off with:

Catholics believe nothing in Tradition conflicts with anything in the Bible. So one way to determine whether something is in Tradition is to determine whether that something conflicts with the Bible. If it conflicts with the Bible, it is not in Tradition. So Tradition is subject to Biblical constraint, which means the Catholic Church believes in Sola Scriptura.👍 :cool:

Any takers?🙂
 
Hmmh…:hmmm:

Bob is going to write a history book. Nothing in his history book can conflict with John Smith’s Big Book of World History, the recognized authority on historical matters. Therefore, Bob must concede that only John Smith’s Big Book of World History may be used to determine historical fact. As such, it is ridiculous for Bob to write a book of his own.

Does this make sense? No. Because, there could be a great deal of historical information available which is not contained in John Smith’s Big Book of World History. This additional information could certainly clarify the information in John Smith’s Big Book of World History, without in any way contradicting it.
 
Catholics believe nothing in Tradition conflicts with anything in the Bible.
More appropriately, nothing in the Bible conflicts with Tradition. Inconsistency with Tradition was one of the criteria for determining canonicity.
So one way to determine whether something is in Tradition is to determine whether that something conflicts with the Bible.
A circular way 🙂
If it conflicts with the Bible, it is not in Tradition. So Tradition is subject to Biblical constraint, which means the Catholic Church believes in Sola Scriptura.
Tradition predates Scripture. Even Scripture itself is a component of Tradition. It is only by the Tradition of the Church that books could be determined to be part of Scripture.

Jeremy
 
From the Catechism:
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely
If He expressed Himself completely in Scripture, then it is all there. There is therefore nothing in the Tradition which cannot be found in Scripture.

Also from the catechism:
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."40 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."41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42 "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Scripture is NOT part of Tradition according to Catholic teaching. To say that it is goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church as demonstrated here.
I’ll answer the rest later. Good night.
 
From the Catechism:

If He expressed Himself completely in Scripture, then it is all there. There is therefore nothing in the Tradition which cannot be found in Scripture.

I’ll answer the rest later. Good night.
From Scripture Catholic:

Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been “entrusted” to you. The word “entrusted” is “paratheke” which means a “deposit.” Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is “tradition,” or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.
 
Protestants rely on their man-made Traditions over the Bible.

The Old Testament should contain Maccabees.

Martin Luther started the “Tradition” of taking out Maccabees.

Since Protestant “Tradition” conflicts with the Old Testament Canon, Maccabees is out.

Therefore their Bible is subject to the constraints of their “Traditions.”

Hence Protestants hold their “Tradition” over Scripture.
 
Ok.:rolleyes:

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 are some fightin’ words to start things off with:

Catholics believe nothing in Tradition conflicts with anything in the Bible. So one way to determine whether something is in Tradition is to determine whether that something conflicts with the Bible. If it conflicts with the Bible, it is not in Tradition. So Tradition is subject to Biblical constraint, which means the Catholic Church believes in Sola Scriptura.👍 :cool:

Any takers?🙂
This statement is not all together there. “If it conflicts with the Bible, it is not in Tradition.” is not a true statement because the Canon of Scripture, (Divine Word of God that says what books are Scripture) is not in Scripture therefore there is nothing to compare the Canon to:D .

Ken
 
What you SHOULD DO is find the documents pertaining to Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Documents and post quotes from them here instead of setting up something other than Catholic Teaching.

Ken
 
This is going to the Protestant believe that it’s the Bible that makes the Church. Isn’t it? But rather it’s the other way around.
 
From the Catechism: From the Catechism:
Quote:
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely

If He expressed Himself completely in Scripture, then it is all there. There is therefore nothing in the Tradition which cannot be found in Scripture.

If He expressed Himself completely in Scripture, then it is all there. There is therefore nothing in the Tradition which cannot be found in Scripture.
Truthstalker by brother in Chirst, good for you for reading and trying to understand the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and I mean that sincerely. But, you misunderstood your quote above. Our God is a God of few words, with the small “w”, but He uttered just one “Word”, Jesus Christ. Your misunderstanding is like the somewhat trick question Catholics ask our protestant brethern, “Where do you find the Word of God?”. The common answer is the Bible of course, which is wrong, the correct answer and what Chapter 102 proclaims is the “Word of God” is not a thing it is a person, Jesus the Christ!

Now that puts you back to the importance of Sacred Tradition, which comes from the oral teaching of Jesus, the only Son of God Almighty, who came to this earth and unlike the prophets who told our ancestors how to follow God, He showed us how to know and follow His Father; through Him. Some of His Apostles and disciples wrote down a lot of what He taught and did, but you know what John said at the conclusion of his gospel. Do you see the value of Sacred Tradition and the Church’s protection provided by the Holy Spirit? It is not man-made, it came from Jesus Himself.

Peace To You
 
I am not setting Tradition in opposition to Scripture, nor denying a legitimate role to Tradition. Instead I am arguing for a hierarchy: anything that contradicts the Bible cannot be part of Tradition, because true Tradition and the Bible are in full accord. So Tradition can be evaluated by the Bible. Tradition can be used to help us understand the Bible, but not to evaluate its authority. So Tradition is necessarily subordinate to the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura does not deny the legitimacy of Tradition. Sola Scriptura regards the Bible as the ultimate, not the sole, authority, on matters on which it speaks. It if does not speak on something, then it is not authoritative on that matter.
 
Ok.:rolleyes:

, which means the Catholic Church believes in Sola Scriptura.👍 :cool:

Any takers?🙂
In addition to the problems already pointed out, where does the divinely-established, living, thinking, decision-making, authority of the Church magisterium fit into your scenario?
 
I am not setting Tradition in opposition to Scripture, nor denying a legitimate role to Tradition. Instead I am arguing for a hierarchy:
A hierarchy that contradicts Scripture.
anything that contradicts the Bible cannot be part of Tradition, because true Tradition and the Bible are in full accord.
Tradition was used to determine the books that comprised the Bible, so how can the Bible subsequently judge the Tradition by which it was determined?
So Tradition can be evaluated by the Bible. Tradition can be used to help us understand the Bible, but not to evaluate its authority.
Tradition must be used to evaluate the authority of a work claiming to be Scripture. If it is inconsistent with Tradition, it is not Scripture and its claim to authority is false.
So Tradition is necessarily subordinate to the Scriptures.
A patently ridiculous claim, since Tradition must be used to establish the canon of Scripture in the first place.
Sola Scriptura does not deny the legitimacy of Tradition. Sola Scriptura regards the Bible as the ultimate, not the sole, authority, on matters on which it speaks. It if does not speak on something, then it is not authoritative on that matter.
The Bible cannot even resolve authoritatively what books comprise it, and yet you claim that it is the ultimate authority on other facts? How does that work?

Jeremy
 
Sola Scriptura regards the Bible as the ultimate, not the sole, authority, on matters on which it speaks. It if does not speak on something, then it is not authoritative on that matter.
Actually, the Sola part means exactly what you say it doesn’t, “sole”.

Sola Scriptura is literally Scripture Alone.
 
…which means the Catholic Church believes in Sola Scriptura.👍 :cool:
If the bible didn’t exist, would Jesus’ Church still be here?

Your logic doesn’t fit with the fact that our Catholic Church existed before the new testament writing did.

Yep … we had a church with no bible.
How could THAT church be Sola Scriptura?

michel
 
Instead I am arguing for a hierarchy: anything that contradicts the Bible cannot be part of Tradition, because true Tradition and the Bible are in full accord. So Tradition can be evaluated by the Bible. Tradition can be used to help us understand the Bible, but not to evaluate its authority. So Tradition is necessarily subordinate to the Scriptures.
I understand where you got this and where you’re headed, I think.

But here’s the thing, while you will certainly have your basket full of Catholics who defend Tradition with “Tradition does not contradict the Bible,” as you have keenly pointed out through your citations of the CCC, this is not the essence of the Catholic doctrinal stand.

Instead, when you hear “Tradition does not contradict the Bible,” it is an apologetic tool. Maybe even a weak one, under some circumstances. It’s true, but it does not reflect the seamless garment of Divine Revelation. In essence it’s only half true. And before we wag our fingers at the Catholics for telling “half truths,” one must understand the position that a Catholic apologist is in when confronted by Protestants about “Tradition.”

We know all too well our common ground. . .Scripture. So, the refrain “Tradition does not contradict the Bible” and all the ensuing heirarchical implications are based on the fact that the Bible is the obvious first place to begin in an Catholic-Protestant dialogue.
 
If the bible didn’t exist, would Jesus’ Church still be here?

Your logic doesn’t fit with the fact that our Catholic Church existed before the new testament writing did.

Yep … we had a church with no bible.
How could THAT church be Sola Scriptura?

michel
It had the Old Testament, for one thing…
 
Men and women differ. Occaisionally I run into someone who vehemently insists that that means there cannot be the superiority of one gender over the other, but there must be a rigorous equality, an equation on all levels, lest one “rule” the other. I sense something of the same tenor here, where the idea that Scripture might have authority on its own, even over Tradition in some manner, seems to be a politically incorrect statement. I find this very odd.

Not only odd, but bizarre. It is as if I were saying men have a measure of authority, so I am accused of denying the existence of women. Men, I say, have upper-body strength and facial hair. Some seem to reply that I hate women.

Scripture and Tradition work together. When new material is being evaluated as doctrines or dogma, surely the Scriptures are consulted: is this what it really says? Is this in Tradition? How does Scripture support what we are saying? To my mind Scripture is more the what and Tradition the how.

Catholics seem to spend way too much time attacking Sola Scriptura and too little time extolling the value of Tradition, as if to shame Protestants into retreat and a begrudging acceptence of a lesser position, that of a less-than-adequate Scripture and a meager Tradition. Single people are deviant, they are told: you must get married. Here is an ugly old woman. Enjoy.

Scripture has authority in its own right, apart from Tradition, as the revealed word of God. At times that revelation informs Tradition and safegaurds it from error. Simultaneously Tradition safeguards Scripture from misinterpretation. Catholics seem to have trouble with the first of the last three questions while yelling the third. Balance is needed: at times Scriptural authority outweighs that of Tradition, and so in some ways, at some times, it is the ultimate authority for the Catholic.

There are shallow and superficial versions of SS running all over the place. The real thing is actually Catholic, if Catholicism is true (here I am taking a Catholic position) so you need to take it back from the Protestants and explain what it really is, instead of the sad thing people reject because of its inadequacy.

It’s that both-and thing again. Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia. Don’t cut yourselves short.
 
It had the Old Testament, for one thing…
heheeheh … i knew you’d say that.

Am I correctly inferring from your statement that a ‘bible’ existed before the church?
This bible being the old testament writings?
Would this bible be one that all Jews agreed upon?

You hadn’t actually answered those very important questions.

If the bible didn’t exist, would Jesus’ Church still be here?
If so, how could THAT church be Sola Scriptura?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top