Follow up on SS

[Per_Crucem]

I do not understand why people have such a hard time
with this.
Sacred Scripture is the purely and entirely the result
of Sacred Tradition being written down to preserve it.
To throw out Sacred Tradition as true or relevant plainly
one needs to also throw out the results: Scripture.

Not quite. What needs to be proven is that any given teaching or tradition be traced to the apostles. It’s not enough to say its present at X point in history. A lot of crazy ideas are very old. Antiquity does not equate to orthodoxy. Our dispute over tradition is not that it is tradition, but that it is not apostolic tradition.

 

[spina1953]

I would like to point another reason why I think that SS does not work. Throughout the history of Jewish thinking, Scripture as was known to them were edited and reedited over the course of several generations. A prophet like Isaiah was more likely to speak the word of God than to write it down; he left the task of writing to his disciples. They , in turn, might have produced only random notes of what Isaiah said. Later followers organized those notes and put them into a smoother written style.

With few exceptions, the authors of the Old and New Testament books did not think of themselves as professional writers. They were members of a community which felt itself to be especially chosen as the bearer of God's promise. Their writing was an expression of the community in action; it was the religious experience of the nation, of reflecting on that word, of telling the story, and of handing on the message to later generations of the community

The writers of the New Testament, the Gospels especially, and to understand them one must go further and note the various ways such reflections were carried out. At times Scripture were cited directly and applied. A Scripture text thus illumined the meaning of later events in the life of Jesus and of the Christian community. Frequently, the same effect could be achieved by the simple use of well recognized biblical language when referring to an event. The most extensive use of this procedure appears in the Jewish form called midrash. It is the retelling of a biblical story with a view to bringing out its meaning for a later generation. The Christians and the Gospels writers readily used this form of writing. However, the Christian intent was usually to bring out the meaning of the present event in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures rather than to provide a formal commentary on the ancient biblical story. The result was a kind of midrash in reverse.

Midrashic writing is especially prominent in Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth and infancy. In those accounts the meaning and implications of Jesus’ life and work are set forth in highly biblical terms. Although there are frequent direct quotations from the Scripture in those narratives, biblical language and phrases are present throughout. The infancy narratives can thus be compared to Gospels in miniature, in which multiple biblical references from many parts of the Old Testament form a marvelous theological tapestry… Elements in the infancy narratives which are more biblical and poetic than historical should not be considered untrue. Rather, they are meant to pierce beneath the surface of historical observation and to present the divine truth concerning the significance of Jesus for human history. Through a better understanding of the literary forms of the Bible, a reader can find more clearly that the Bible is truly good news but one must still remember that in order to understand it is from the Catholic Church’s understanding and its interpretations given to us that we come to understand what it said and what is meant in Scriptures. It is not up to the individual to decide what Scripture means and says since misunderstandings and misinterpretations are easily created and in thinking that Scriptures are the last word and the final word on faith and morals was never intended by the authors and writers of the works that became sacred Scripture. The Apostles themselves never thought so and only those who did write never intended that their writings would be intended to be the last word but that the Church Catholic would pass on generation to generation what they had learned from Jesus Himself orally by tradition and not by some type of SS as a final word.

Jesus was the leader of the Disciples who would become Apostles and Peter became the leader of the Apostles after Jesus ascended in to heaven. The other Apostles while they did not always agree with each other they agreed to be in union with each other under the leadership of Peter, which developed into the Papal system we now have as to the one to be the final word of what is to be taught and understood as believers in Christ through the Catholic Church.

 

[marywarfield]

Not quite. What needs to be proven is that any given teaching or tradition be traced to the apostles. It’s not enough to say its present at X point in history. A lot of crazy ideas are very old. Antiquity does not equate to orthodoxy. Our dispute over tradition is not that it is tradition, but that it is not apostolic tradition.

And again another circular argument. For you see
if the Gospels are not the written traditional words from
the apostles, you have NO Scripture to rely upon- you
again have to throw the baby out with the Sola and the bath water.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And again another circular argument.

For you see
if the Gospels are not the written traditional words from
the apostles, you have NO Scripture to rely upon- you
again have to throw the baby out with the Sola and the bath water.

Who is arguing that the apostles did not write the Gospels?

 

[SteveVH]

Who is arguing that the apostles did not write the Gospels?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but how in the world do you know that the Gospels were written by the Apostles? In fact, Luke was not one of the twelve. The only reason you know that the Bible is inspired and that the Gospels convey the Apostolic faith (at least a portion of it) is because of the authority of the Catholic Church which actually lived the New Testament before a word of it was committed to writing. It possessed the fullness of truth from the beginning, being led by the Holy Spirit into all truth as Christ promised. Sacred Scripture was born from Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.

 

[marywarfield]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but how in the world do you know that the Gospels were written by the Apostles? In fact, Luke was not one of the twelve. The only reason you know that the Bible is inspired and that the Gospels convey the Apostolic faith (at least a portion of it) is because of the authority of the Catholic Church which actually lived the New Testament before a word of it was committed to writing. It possessed the fullness of truth from the beginning, being led by the Holy Spirit into all truth as Christ promised. Sacred Scripture was born from Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.

I didn’t say the Apostles wrote gospels. Please re
Read.

 

[SteveVH]

I didn’t say the Apostles wrote gospels. Please re
Read.

Huh? My post was in response to this, from Per Crucem

Originally Posted by Per Crucem
Who is arguing that the apostles did not write the Gospels?

It was not addressed to you.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but how in the world do you know that the Gospels were written by the Apostles? In fact, Luke was not one of the twelve. The only reason you know that the Bible is inspired and that the Gospels convey the Apostolic faith (at least a portion of it) is because of the authority of the Catholic Church

Because history, archaelogy, textual criticism, date of composition, etc. are not available to us? One may as well say, “How do you know Josephus wrote his Antiquities? The church!”

Look, I’m not saying you don’t have a point. The testimony of the church, collectively, as well as individually (e.g., the fathers) is huge evidence for the reliability of the NT. However, that the church testifies to the NT does not equate to the “magisterium,” because the church does not = magisterium.

Overall, however, that isn’t what is being discussed. What is being discussed is whether what Rome considers “tradition” that exists outside of the Scriptures is, in fact, apostolic in origin.

 

[SteveVH]

Because history, archaelogy, textual criticism, date of composition, etc. are not available to us? One may as well say, “How do you know Josephus wrote his Antiquities? The church!”

Look, I’m not saying you don’t have a point. The testimony of the church, collectively, as well as individually (e.g., the fathers) is huge evidence for the reliability of the NT. However, that the church testifies to the NT does not equate to the “magisterium,” because the church does not = magisterium.

Overall, however, that isn’t what is being discussed. What is being discussed is whether what Rome considers “tradition” that exists outside of the Scriptures is, in fact, apostolic in origin.

But that is my point. The Scriptures derived from Sacred Tradition. If Sacred Tradition is not apostolic then neither is the New Testament.

 

[Nicea325]

Joe, I am thinking that perhaps we are asking the wrong question here; maybe that’s why we seem to talk past each other on SS.

Would you agree that the Scriptures contains the truth necessary for salvation through Christ? Do we need more than that for salvation?

One cannot read their way into Heaven. Tell me something? What about the folks who NEVER once read “the truth necessary for salvation” to know Christ?

 

[Per_Crucem]

But that is my point. The Scriptures derived from Sacred Tradition. If Sacred Tradition is not apostolic then neither is the New Testament.

But the issue is not sacred tradition itself. It is the content and whether the content is apostolic. If the content is true then it is indeed sacred and inspired, because it would come from Jesus through the apostles. If it is not apostolic, it is neither sacred nor inspired but mere conjecture at best and patently false at worst.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Per Crucem
Because history, archaelogy, textual criticism, date of composition, etc. are not available to us? One may as well say, “How do you know Josephus wrote his Antiquities? The church!”

Look, I’m not saying you don’t have a point. The testimony of the church, collectively, as well as individually (e.g., the fathers) is huge evidence for the reliability of the NT. However, that the church testifies to the NT does not equate to the “magisterium,” because the church does not = magisterium.

Overall, however, that isn’t what is being discussed. **What is being discussed is whether what Rome considers “tradition” that exists outside of the Scriptures is, in fact, apostolic in origin. **

The canon for staters. The Bible does not provide or mention a canonized list of books,the church provided it for us. How? Apostolic Tradition outside the Bible. Unless you can provide evidence the canon is taught and mentioned in the Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t agree with that. My denomination and at the parish level resolves doctrinal disputes all the time and our denomination practices Sola Scriptura.

Who has the correct interpretation? What happens when a different interpretation appears? How does Scripture resolve it,if interpretations vary?

Does one person have the correct interpretation? Does a committee vote? How is it resolved? If Scripture is clear,then variations should not occur.

 

[SteveVH]

But the issue is not sacred tradition itself. It is the content and whether the content is apostolic. If the content is true then it is indeed sacred and inspired, because it would come from Jesus through the apostles. If it is not apostolic, it is neither sacred nor inspired but mere conjecture at best and patently false at worst.

Your statement is extremely confusing. The “issue is not sacred tradition itself” but rather the content? The content is Sacred Tradition. Either the Church was led by the Holy Spirit into all truth or it was not. Following your logic you would have to believe that the Church possessed the fullness of truth up and until it canonized the Scriptures and then some how fell apart and lost its apostolic teaching. Is that what you believe? If so, please name one doctrine that has ever been changed since the foundation of the Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The canon for staters. The Bible does not provide or mention a canonized list of books,the church provided it for us. How? Apostolic Tradition outside the Bible. Unless you can provide evidence the canon is taught and mentioned in the Bible?

Did I say that the canon is** not **an apostolic tradition outside of the Scriptures? Since I agree with the CC on the canon, I am not disputing that. It is tradition that is in dispute that is the divide. Besides, I wouldn’t consider the canon an apostolic tradition (i.e., dogmatic teaching) so much as a product of revelation.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Your statement is extremely confusing. The “issue is not sacred tradition itself” but rather the content? The content is Sacred Tradition.

If the content is false then it is not tradition. That is my point.

Either the Church was led by the Holy Spirit into all truth or it was not. Following your logic you would have to believe that the Church possessed the fullness of truth up and until it canonized the Scriptures and then some how fell apart and lost its apostolic teaching. Is that what you believe? If so, please name one doctrine that has ever been changed since the foundation of the Church.

That would be question begging. It assumes what it seeks to prove. In order to demonstrate that the CC lost infallibility and all the other associative dogmas you assign to it, I would have to accept them at the outset. Which I don’t.

 

[Nicea325]

Did I say that the canon is** not **an apostolic tradition outside of the Scriptures? Since I agree with the CC on the canon, I am not disputing that. It is tradition that is in dispute that is the divide. Besides, I wouldn’t consider the canon an apostolic tradition (i.e., dogmatic teaching) so much as a product of revelation.

Your question is vague. Tradition as [T]radition or [t]radition? Be more specific?

 

[SteveVH]

If the content is false then it is not tradition. That is my point.

That would be question begging. It assumes what it seeks to prove. In order to demonstrate that the CC lost infallibility and all the other associative dogmas you assign to it, I would have to accept them at the outset. Which I don’t.

The same Church that determined that Hebrews is an inspired text also claims infallibility. You had better hope that it was infallible when choosing the writings that make up your Bible. But the point is that you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe; that the Church was infallible in determining the canon of Scripture but not infallible when professing a doctrine with which you personally object, as if you were the final arbiter of truth.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The same Church that determined that Hebrews is an inspired text also claims infallibility.

The western or eastern Church?

You had better hope that it was infallible when choosing the writings that make up your Bible.

I’m satisfied with God being infallible.

But the point is that you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe; that the Church was infallible in determining the canon of Scripture but not infallible when professing a doctrine with which you personally object, as if you were the final arbiter of truth.

Hmm…checking for when I labeled myself arbiter of truth. Nope. Missed it.

 

[Nicea325]

The western or eastern Church?

I’m satisfied with God being infallible.

Hmm…checking for when I labeled myself arbiter of truth. Nope. Missed it.

Does the Eastern church reject Hebrews as now? The East was involved with the canon.