Does Sola Scriptura even exist?

[BobCatholic]

I cannot debate some vague idea with no precise definition.

There is no precise definition of sola scriptura. If there were, all sola scripturists would hold to it.

That’s one major reason sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

 

[BobCatholic]

I thought “sola” means “solo” meaning by itself. I guess I was really wrong!!

It does.

Sola scriptura, in latin, means “only the scripture” - but that cannot be practiced, as evidenced by the magisteriums and traditions that sola scripturists apparently think are authoritative.

 

[Montalban]

My question is, does this exist? Is there a Church out there, or even a single person, that uses the Scriptures themselves and nothing else? More importantly, is it possible to derive doctrine from the Scriptures apart from tradition - any tradition?

I thought Luther used the Bible and ‘reason’.

Luther believed in Sunday worship, though as far as I’m aware there’s no firm Scriptural support for it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Is Sacred Tradition contained inside the Sacred Scripture? Meaning that all the messages for salvation given in Sacred Tradition are contained in Sacred Scripture?

I could be wrong, but yes, I think the basic starting point of all Church Traditions are contained within the Catholic Canon, including, in my opinion, the ideas of Purgatory and the office of the Papacy for example-- and even references to the oral traditions. It does not, in my opinion, contain all Sacred Tradition, since the written Scriptures end shortly after the Sacred Tradition of the New Covenant began.

simbagizmo:

I understand that Catholics believe that the full truth is contained in the combination of Scripture and Tradition. We both understand Scripture being the Bible, but from what you have written above, is Tradition then the Teaching office of the Catholic Church?

Again, I could be wrong, but no, I think Sacred Tradition equals the History of the Church, the Living Witness of all authentically Catholic believers over the last approximatly 2,000 years since the birth of Christ.

The Teaching Office of the Magisterium, on the other hand, is more or less akin to an authentic Apostolic Succession. The principle underlying the Catholic claim is contained in the idea of succession. “To succeed” is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV.

Now the Popes of the Catholic Church come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors-- perhaps even blending characteristics of the school of the prophets as noted in II Kings 4:38.

There appears to have been more than one school of the prophets as far as I can tell, but I’m sure they were related to one another. Also called the company of prophets, either Samuel or else Elijah had apparently founded this divine ministry if I recall correctly-- and whoever was in charge at the time seemed to be their master so to speak.
2 Kings 2:3:

The company of the prophets at Bethel came out to Elisha and asked, “Do you know that the LORD is going to take your master from you today?” “Yes, I know,” Elisha replied, “but do not speak of it.”

Consequently, the word Magisterium is essentially derived from the Latin for magister (or master in English). As such, just as the school of prophets of old perhaps did in the Hebrew Scriptures, I think the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does likewise under the New Covenant but amplified in Christ– she holds the authority, office, and power to teach true doctrine by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You can also see some other interesting things here too…

The Carmelite Nuns…

The Carmelite Tradition

To tell Carmel’s history one must have recourse to mystery, myth, and mysticism, for the Carmelite Order begins something like the book of Genesis in the Bible: “In the beginning…” There is no precise date.

In the beginning… a group of anonymous hermits from Europe either at the end of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century journeyed to Mount Carmel in the Holy Land to follow Christ by dwelling in solitary caves to live out the Gospel call to pray always. The mystery of how the Order started speaks of the humility and self-forgetfulness of its founders.

If you’re really interested in these kinds of questions simbagizmo, you should go to the Ask an Apologist section. There are people there who can really answer these questions much better than I can.

 

[simbagizmo]

I could be wrong, but yes, I think the basic starting point of all Church Traditions are contained within the Catholic Canon, including, in my opinion, the ideas of Purgatory and the office of the Papacy for example-- and even references to the oral traditions. It does not, in my opinion, contain all Sacred Tradition, since the written Scriptures end shortly after the Sacred Tradition of the New Covenant began.

I want to make sure you are understanding my question. You responded with Catholic Canon to my question about Scripture. Let me post it again to make sure I am clear on your response.

**Originally Posted by simbagizmo **
Is Sacred Tradition contained inside the Sacred Scripture? Meaning that all the messages for salvation given in Sacred Tradition are contained in Sacred Scripture?

Your answer to this was “yes”. Then you say that all Church Traditions, capital “T” here (I understand the difference between capital “T” and lower “t”), starts within Catholic Canon. By your answer to my question, you are equating “Church Traditions” with “Sacred Tradition” and “Sacred Scripture” with “Church Canon”. Is this true?

Again, I could be wrong, but no, I think Sacred Tradition equals the History of the Church, the Living Witness of all authentically Catholic believers over the last approximatly 2,000 years since the birth of Christ.

Your statement that Solo Scriptura is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition equals the History of the Church, is Sola Scriptura in your definition the History of the Church. Please explain.

If you’re really interested in these kinds of questions simbagizmo, you should go to the Ask an Apologist section. There are people there who can really answer these questions much better than I can.

The reason I am asking you this, because you stated the following:

But I don’t have a defintion of Sola Scriptura that doesn’t involve Sacred Tradition. To me, Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition-- and I don’t have a problem with Sacred Traditions.

If, in your interpretation, that Solo Scripture is Sacred Tradition, and you do not have a problem with Sacred Tradition, then you must not have a problem with Solo Scriptura based on your definition since one is the other. So, I wanted to know your understanding of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I want to make sure you are understanding my question. You responded with Catholic Canon to my question about Scripture. Let me post it again to make sure I am clear on your response.

Your answer to this was “yes”. Then you say that all Church Traditions, capital “T” here (I understand the difference between capital “T” and lower “t”), starts within Catholic Canon. By your answer to my question, you are equating “Church Traditions” with “Sacred Tradition” and “Sacred Scripture” with “Church Canon”. Is this true?

Your statement that Solo Scriptura is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition equals the History of the Church, is Sola Scriptura in your definition the History of the Church. Please explain.

The reason I am asking you this, because you stated the following:

If, in your interpretation, that Solo Scripture is Sacred Tradition, and you do not have a problem with Sacred Tradition, then you must not have a problem with Solo Scriptura based on your definition since one is the other. So, I wanted to know your understanding of Sacred Tradition.

When did I say anything about Solo Scriptura?

I think you’re over-emphasizing my points simbagizmo, effectively trying to force my words to say more than I actually implied.

What I’m stressing is the interconnectedness of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium-- all of which have been interconnected motions of the Holy Spirit in the Church of God. They all validate each other. But if you remove any of these things, you end up with a skewered perception of the Church.

For example, in order for Sacred Scripture to work, the Magisterium needs to be able to verify their interpretation within Sacred Tradition. There is nothing within the Scriptures which claims the Scriptures automatically interpret the Scriptures without error.

In order for Sacred Tradition to work, the Magisterium needs to be able to verify the Living Witness of the Church in contrast to the preliminary record as is evident in the Sacred Scriptures. And all traditions within Catholicism can be traced throughout the Living Witness of Church History.

In order for the Magisterium to work, both the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Traditions need to consistently verify what the Magisterium has been teaching since the beginning. And the Catholic Church can trace all doctrines she teaches throughout both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradtion.

In other words, there needs to be a divine harmony between all three by the Holy Spirit, without which the Church will fall into error.

It was late last night, so maybe I wasn’t explaining this clearly. Does this make better sense?

 

[simbagizmo]

When did I say anything about Solo Scriptura?

Sorry. Typo on my part. I meant Sola Scriptura. Here is your quote again below.

Originally Posted by Mr. Ex Nihilo
But I don’t have a defintion of Sola Scriptura that doesn’t involve Sacred Tradition. To me, Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition-- and I don’t have a problem with Sacred Traditions.

I think you’re over-emphasizing my points simbagizmo, effectively trying to force my words to say more than I actually implied.

That is not my intention. I am just trying to understand your definition of Sacred Tradition when you stated that Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition.

What I’m stressing is the interconnectedness of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium-- all of which have been interconnected motions of the Holy Spirit in the Church of God. They all validate each other. But if you remove any of these things, you end up with a skewered perception of the Church.

OK, but lets first make the distinction between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterium. I think we are in agreement with the understanding of Sacred Scripture being the Bible. I assume by Magisterium you are talking about the teaching office of the Catholic Church. What I have trouble with is understanding what Sacred Tradition is. You stated Sola Scripture is Sacred Tradition. So I wanted to know what is Sacred Tradition? Who defines it? What teaching does it offer different then Sacred Scripture?

 

[AlegreFe]

It’s actually better to say that the Scriptures conform to the teachings of the Church, since the teachings of the Church came first, and then, later, the Scriptures were formed, to help with the transmission of Church teachings (Holy Tradition) to the whole world.

:yup: You are absolutely right. I knew that too but I was replying to his exact words. But then I should’ve clarified as you did here, to make him understand that the Church indeed came before the Bible. The Church was the one who wrote the Bible. But we all know that God is the Author.

They also wrote some things down - some (but not all) of these things were read out in the Churches and were useful for instruction, exhortation, and enlightenment - these particular writings eventually became our New Testament. The canon (list of table of contents) of the New Testament was closed with a set canon of 27 Apostolic books in about 400-405 AD by Pope St. Innocent I. At that time, he also emphasized the use of the Alexandrian canon of the Old Testament (a set list of 46 books) in the Church.

:yup: Yes absolutely. I had an old CD that I got from one of the churches that I go to and I wanted to listen to it again so I did. It’s nice to hear something more than once as we tend to get something more out of it. The CD was called… I don’t remember the whole name (I left it in my car CD player) but I think it’s something like “What Came First, the Church or the Bible?” but somehow that title doesn’t look right. It’s by Matthew Arnold. It’s a talk about Church history. I’ll do a search and see if I find it…

I found something like it. Saint Joseph Communications sometimes changes the names of CDs. I think this one could be the same one as the description sounds the same. The Story of the Bible is what I found. I’m pretty sure this is the one. Get it, it’s a good talk about Church history and how the Church came way before the Bible was ever written and printed. :yup:

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Sorry. Typo on my part. I meant Sola Scriptura. Here is your quote again below.

Alright then. Then what are you asking for?

simbagizmo:

That is not my intention. I am just trying to understand your definition of Sacred Tradition when you stated that Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition.

I’m saying that through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely. That word is Christ. But God speaks Christ through us as well.
Revelation 19:13:

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

That one and same Word of God extends throughout Scripture and Tradition.

simbagizmo:

OK, but lets first make the distinction between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterium. I think we are in agreement with the understanding of Sacred Scripture being the Bible. I assume by Magisterium you are talking about the teaching office of the Catholic Church.

You don’t have to assume this. I’ve made this fairly clear I think.

simbagizmo:

What I have trouble with is understanding what Sacred Tradition is. You stated Sola Scripture is Sacred Tradition. So I wanted to know what is Sacred Tradition?

Sacred Tradition is the Living Witness of Christ manifesting through his Church by the Holy Spirit.

simbagizmo:

Who defines it?

God defines it by the Holy Spirit according to the manifestation of Christ.

simbagizmo:

What teaching does it offer different then Sacred Scripture?

Nothing. The same Word of God, Christ Jesus, is manifested in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

The Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word of God”, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.

If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open our minds to understand the Scriptures.”

Check this out…

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[simbagizmo]

Sacred Tradition is the Living Witness of Christ manifesting through his Church by the Holy Spirit.

Can you please explain your understanding of what this actually means. Is this stating that Sacred Tradition is the body of believers? Are the believers what you mean when you say “the Living Witness of Christ”?

God defines it (Sacred Tradition) by the Holy Spirit according to the manifestation of Christ.

Here also I need your help to understand. Based on the above two quotes, are you stating that Sacred Tradition is revelation given to believers by the Holy Spirit?

 

[DesertBrother]

Christ established a Church that would smash the gates of hell. He did not establish a series of academic proclamations.

As the saying goes: “One can know all about Christ and still not know Him.” I think the Protestant Academics have rather proven that.

CDL

VERY well said, sir.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Can you please explain your understanding of what this actually means. Is this stating that Sacred Tradition is the body of believers? Are the believers what you mean when you say “the Living Witness of Christ”?

Here also I need your help to understand. Based on the above two quotes, are you stating that Sacred Tradition is revelation given to believers by the Holy Spirit?

My apologies, but what do you think I mean?

I’m saying that the Word of God manifests himself by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.
1 Thessalonians 2:13:

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Hebrews 13:7:

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

1 Peter 1:23:

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

What do you think I mean when I say that the Word of God manifests himself by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium?

I’m not sure what else I can say here.

 

[simbagizmo]

My apologies, but what do you think I mean?

I posted what I think you mean. Here it is again. Am I on the right track?

Originally Posted by simbagizmo
Can you please explain your understanding of what this actually means. Is this stating that Sacred Tradition is the body of believers? Are the believers what you mean when you say “the Living Witness of Christ”?

Here also I need your help to understand. Based on the above two quotes, are you stating that Sacred Tradition is revelation given to believers by the Holy Spirit?

I’m saying that the Word of God manifests himself by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

What do you think I mean when I say that the Word of God manifests himself by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium?

I assume by manifest you mean “provide evidence of”. So what I hear you saying is:

the Word of God provides evidence of himself by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium

I’m not sure what else I can say here.

What does your defintion of Sacred Tradition mean?

Sacred Tradition is the Living Witness of Christ manifesting through his Church by the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying the following:

Sacred Tradition is body of Believers, who are the living witness of Christ, by the Holy Spirit providing evidence of God.

 

[Contarini]

As it can be so difficult to define a definitive definition* of sola scriptura, I will borrow Wikipedia’s. Here it is:Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicacious) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.In this thread I would like to focus on the last part of the definition, that Scripture is “sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine”.

My question is, does this exist? Is there a Church out there, or even a single person, that uses the Scriptures themselves and nothing else? More importantly, is it possible to derive doctrine from the Scriptures apart from tradition - any tradition?

My contention is that it is not possible to do this, and hence sola scriptura doesn’t even exist. Can someone prove me wrong?

*Alliteration perhaps?!

Wikipedia is a bad source for theological nuance. I don’t think a discussion starting with this definition is going to get very far.

I don’t have anything whatever at stake in the term “sola scriptura,” so I see no need to define it.

Here’s a proposition I am willing to defend, taken right out of the Anglican 39 Articles:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

I don’t really care whether this is “sola scriptura” or not.

The other component to the version of “sola scriptura” I’d be willing to defend is the proposition, also found in the Articles, that the Church has no authority to teach contrary to scripture. In that form it’s obviously uncontroversial–the real question is whether it is possible for the Church (as a hierarchical body) to teach contrary to Scripture and thus teach falsely. I’m open to the possibility that there exists a body (whether the Roman or one of the Eastern Communions) that has never officially and dogmatically taught error. But since I’m really more interested in the day-to-day process of discerning proper faith and practice, this isn’t a matter of huge importance to me. On that day-to-day level, all churches clearly have taught contrary to Scripture and do need to be corrected on the basis of Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Syele]

Oh so we’re not arguing intelligently but stupidly or irrationally? At least spell the word correctly.

Sola anything is cut 'n dry and apparently simple. Nothing to ponder over in an intelligent way. A little child with a low IQ could tell us what Sola anything means as long as they know what “sola” means.

And if you put 5 “solas” together and don’t want to separate them then they are no longer sola are they? Which proves the OP correct along with that Cambridge Declaration. Because after all that declaration is NOT in the Bible and neither are the 5 solas for that matter.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Duh.gif I guess I have no clue whatsoever as to what Sola anything means. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/huh.gif I must be stupid.

Look, my point is that in this case the title is not a definition of the doctrines. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Over and over people here discuss it like the title is an accurate definition of the doctrine and it just plain isn’t. And then they insist on discussing it whout bothering to say what definition they are talking about.

You know what the latin translates to; whoopie for you.

If you’re not Calvinist then why bother reading this declaration at all?

Because I like to know what I’m talking about before I try and refute things. I guess that makes me stupid.

I have no patience left with this subject.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I posted what I think you mean. Here it is again. Am I on the right track?

I assume by manifest you mean “provide evidence of”. So what I hear you saying is:

the Word of God provides evidence of himself by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium

No. I am saying that the Word of God is Christ Jesus. And the world most clearly knows Jesus through the Church he founded in order to teach the world his truth by the Holy Spirit.

simbagizmo:

What does your defintion of Sacred Tradition mean?

Are you saying the following:

Sacred Tradition is body of Believers, who are the living witness of Christ, by the Holy Spirit providing evidence of God.

Here’s Sacred Scripture at (CCC 101–141)…

Here’s Sacred Tradition at (CCC 75–83)…

Here’s the Magisterium at (CCC 85–87, 888–892)…

All in one, the three must be in agreement.

I’m saying that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium must be, to the extent of the fullness that God has revealed, in agreement with each other. If they are not in agreement, then this is an excellent indication that the Holy Spirit is not active amongst whatever particular doctrine is being taught.

One cannot rely solely on Sacred Scripture, or Sacred Tradition, nor the Magisterium. All three must be in agreement, in agreement by the Holy Spirit.

The three, when combined, are a living and visible sign of God’s eternal and invisible presence. The Church, in this sense, is a living sacrament offered up before God as focussed throughout the Eucharist.

 

[BobCatholic]

My contention is that it is not possible to do this, and hence sola scriptura doesn’t even exist. Can someone prove me wrong?

You’re right on the money.

Sola scriptura cannot be practiced for many reasons.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura that all sola scripturists hold to. Without this, how can one practice it when one doesn’t even know what it is?
2. Sola scripturists routinely interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This doctrine or interpretation is nowhere in the Bible. This is a TRADITION, and not sticking to scripture alone.
3. Sola scripturists routinely make declarations like “this is unbiblical!” “your interpretation is wrong” and things like that. This is them exercising their MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY. This is not sticking to scripture alone.

---

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You’re right on the money.

Sola scriptura cannot be practiced for many reasons.

1. There is no firm definition of sola scriptura that all sola scripturists hold to. Without this, how can one practice it when one doesn’t even know what it is?
2. Sola scripturists routinely interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This doctrine or interpretation is nowhere in the Bible. This is a TRADITION, and not sticking to scripture alone.
3. Sola scripturists routinely make declarations like “this is unbiblical!” “your interpretation is wrong” and things like that. This is them exercising their MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY. This is not sticking to scripture alone.

---

These are three excellent points.

In addition all these points, I think it’s also important to note the often extremely blurred line which existed between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and a Magisterial Authority-- even within our Christian Scriptures.

For example, consider 1 Timothy 5:18…

For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

The first part about not muzzling the ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second part about the worker deserving his wages, however, comes from Luke 10:7.

In this passage of ‘Scripture’, Paul actually joins the Hebrew Scriptures with the Christian Scriptures and calls them both collectively Scripture.

While it would not have been unusual for a Hebrew passage to be considered Scripture, I think for a passage from the Christian wirtings to be called Scripture so shortly after it was written, in my opinion, speaks volumes about Paul’s view of the authority of the Christian teachings that were being distrubitted throughout the early church community.

As Ron Rhodes, a protestant scholar, notes, only a very short period of time had elapsed between the writing of the Gospel of Luke and the writing of 1 Timothy (he gives a potential time-frame of three years or so).

Nonetheless, even if the time-frame were longer than 3 years, despite this short time-frame, Paul (himself a “Hebrew of the Hebrews”) does not appear to hesitate to place Luke on the same level of authority as the book of Deuteronomy. In other words, Paul appears to be recognizing that Luke’s Gospel account was “God-breathed”, just as Deuteronomy was believed to be.

Now before somone says, “See, the Scriptures alone were considered authoritative after all”, I think it’s very important to note the context that Paul speaks in. More to the point, Paul himself recognized that his own teachings were indeed inspired of God and therefore authoritative. In other words, I don’t think this vindicates the authority of the Scriptures alone any more than it vindicates the apostle Paul’s authority to actually teach the true meaning of these texts.

For example, Paul, while holding a view of the canon of God-breathed writings which constitute the “oracles of God”, claims for his own teaching, either oral or written, equal status.

The word that he preached was not “the word of men”, but “the word of God” as 1 Thessalonians 2:13 points out.

He notes that the things that he wrote were “the commandment of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 14:37. He likewise notes in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 that if people do not obey the instructions that he provided, they are to be disciplined.

Later, in Galatians 1:8-9, we find that Paul clearly states that if anyone preach or teach any other gospel beside the True Gospel that Paul was preaching, they are to be considered accursed.

Likewise, when Paul speaks as an “apostle of Jesus Christ” to the various churches, it is “Christ that speaks” in him as 2 Corinthians 13:3 points out.

Furthermore, according to Galatians 1:12, in contrast to the claims that his preachings were something “that man made up”, the apostle Paul notes he did not learn his gospel at the feet of men, but rather received it “through revelations of Jesus Christ”, some of which were exceedlinly great according to 2 Corinthians 12:7.

When one examines the way in which Christ reveals himself to Paul as one ‘abnormally born’, it is clear that a transmission from the Holy Spirit was alive and active in him – a transmission that was orignally heard by the Holy Spirit through St. Stephen, and that Paul needed to separate himself from his Hebrew brethren who did not believe – something which he did in fact later confirm when meeting with the other apostles, his Hebrew brothers who did believe the same as he did…

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

 

[simbagizmo]

No. I am saying that the Word of God is Christ Jesus. And the world most clearly knows Jesus through the Church he founded in order to teach the world his truth by the Holy Spirit.

I understand the the Word of God is Jesus Christ. But you asked me if I know what you mean when you say manifests. Here was your question to me.
"Mr. Ex Nihilo:

What do you think I mean when I say that the Word of God manifests himself by the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium?

I thought you meant by this is that Jesus Christ provides evidence of himself by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. If this is not what you mean by manifests, please explain.

Here’s Sacred Tradition at (CCC 75–83)…

I still want to stay with defining Sacred Tradition.

CCC 78
This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition

I assume by the CCC text, that the definition of Tradition is the living transmission of the message of salvation accomplished in the Holy Spirit. If this is accurate, what does “living transmission” mean?

 

[jmcrae]

I assume by the CCC text, that the definition of Tradition is the living transmission of the message of salvation accomplished in the Holy Spirit. If this is accurate, what does “living transmission” mean?

The “living transmission” is living human beings who have been gifted and graced with Ordination through the Church, who, because of their ordination, have the power of the Holy Spirit in a deeper way than everyone else, and through this special kind of power of the Holy Spirit, have the God-given authority and the ability to teach us the Gospel through their preaching, through their leadership in the Sacraments, and through their actions on behalf of the People of God in creating practical environments for us where we can learn about Jesus and come to know Jesus in a living relationship with Him through His Church.

Jesus first gave this authority to Peter and the Apostles. They passed it on to their successors by the laying on of hands (which we call "ordination), and their successors did the same, on down the line right up to the present day. This authority can only be received from a Catholic Bishop, and he is only allowed to give it to another Catholic man, since that is the only unbroken line of living human hands that goes all the way back to Christ.

This authority cannot be taken by force, nor can anyone simply come along and announce himself to be a person of authority in the Church, if he has never been properly ordained to this service by a Catholic Bishop. Such a person could also never ordain anyone else, so although there are many Protestants who claim to be “ordained,” the people who ordained them were not Catholic Bishops, and so they are just lay people who get paid to preach in Protestant churches, and not really ordained at all, since they did not actually receive any of the authority that is passed down to the Church from Christ.