Foundation

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

I would like you to quote where Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”.
Please.

First, my claim was not as narrow as you have made it.

I said: We have numerous 1st and 2nd century writings which indicate the immense weight and importance of oral doctrinal tradition and the authority of the episcopacy in concert with the Roman bishop in the development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon.

I, then, suggested that you read Clement, Ignatius, Iranaeus, and Eusebius as contextual references.

Certainly, you realize that there was no universally accepted New Testament Canon at the time of Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus. My point—perhaps I did not make it well—was merely that while the New Testament Canon was in development, the early Church gave much “weight and importance” to tradition. That Tradition, then, was the responsibility of the episcopacy which generally looked to Rome for authority and instruction.
So to support my intended position regarding the influence of tradition and the authority of the Church:

Pope St. Clement of Rome (c. 80 AD), in support of the apostolic Tradition, the teaching authority of the Church in union with the Bishop of Rome (who happens to be Clement):

“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from Chrsit. Both of these orderly arrangements, then are by God’s will. Receiving their instructions and being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through the countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty: for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.”

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 110 AD), in support of the apostolic Tradition and authority of the Church:
“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles, and with the deacons , who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest.” (to the Magnesians)

“Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.” (to the Ephesians)

“Let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church.” (to the Trallians)

St. Ignatius, in support of the authority of Rome:

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, ,worthy of love. . .” (to the Romans)

St. Iranaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 180 AD), in support of Tradition and the authority of the Church:

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.”

There’s more if you need it. . .

 

[BrianH]

Interesting diversion. . .Not sure of the relevance here. What “history” are you citing? Are you saying that the synoptic gospels are lacking?

Not a diversion. Just did not see much else to add. It is a point Catholics usually are not familiar with.
I do not think the synoptic gospels are lacking.

Although, I’m not entirely sure what “history” you are referring to,

Just checking to see if you read the people you told me to read. I think that is reasonable.

I am quite aware of the differences in style, content, and chronology in the 3 synoptic gospels versus John’s gospel. This is, by no means, an ignored topic in Catholic Scriptural theology circles. In fact, I just finished a study last spring comparing the 4 gospels as such. There are many hypotheses circulating among Catholic and Protestant scholars which explain these differences. And while many scholars (Catholic and Protestant alike) have made some very good arguments, I am not aware of any position which would postulate your assertion “that John read the first three and found them lacking and so chose to write his.” I would love any proof or research you have in favor of this position. Per your own criteria, could you also please provide the named source for the person who received this information from St. John regarding his intention to make up what is lacking in the works of Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

No, not yet. I am sure someone will out my source. I am arguing against Sacred Tradition and just commenting on how they pick and choose. IT is NOT part of my tradition. I dont need it to prove my point. I will address what the early church fathers say about the superiority of scripture as the debate progresses. The only reason it is not part of yours is that it disagrees with the premise behind Catholicism.

 

[JaneFrances]

Please prove your historical claim that the Church was essentially void of the modern Biblical text for almost 400 years.

Sorry, I thought you would have been familiar with the historical periods of Formation (100-220 AD), Discussion (220-367 AD), and Fixation (367-405 AD) regarding the determination of the New Testament Canon. When I referred to “the modern Biblical text,” I was meaning the essentially finalized listing of the New Testament Canon which was approved by the councils of Hippo and Carthage, in 393; Third of Carthage in 397; and Carthage in 419. These lists are widely regarded by scholars (Catholic and Protestant) as the “finalized” canon for the Western Church and are identical to the modern canon we accept today. Thus, since there was no widely accepted Church catalogue of New Testament Scripture until the first synod of Hippo in 393, I said “the Church was essentially void of the modern Biblical text.” Not that the texts, themselves, were non-existent, but that our modern “index” was in flux.

Jane. You just used scripture to prove that tradtion is important. How would you have done that without scripture? How can anyone contend that the two are equal but HAVE to use scripture to prove this?

I was merely communicating my position on your terms. Under the present circumstances, I assume that if I had used Tradition or the Church Fathers to prove the equality of Scripture and Tradition, you would have had issue with that as well. I remind you, your contention is that Scripture ALONE is authoritative and you still have yet to prove the superiority of Scripture beyond your own tradition.

Do you usually believe unnamed sources you do not know where it comes from in other circumstances?

I was not aware that we were dealing in an American court of law. Nor, historically, is the criteria for the canonicity of Sacred Scripture held to the same standards of “named sources” that you demand of Sacred Tradition. I remind you, again, we don’t know who wrote Hebrews, yet we still accept it as God’s Word.

I just realized you might be a lot more liberal than I thought. If you wish to argue against Moses as author of Genesis, that would be another thread. Disappointing Jane.
We do not know who wrote Hebrews but trust the Holy Spirit./

QUOTE]

I, in no way, deny the role of Moses in the development of the entire Pentateuch, including Genesis. However, I think you would be very naïve to insist that Moses is the sole author of Genesis especially in light of the extensive scholarly research which identifies at least four primary historical traditions as sources for the development of the Torah. I’m equally disappointed.

In any case, my point in mentioning the elusive authorship of Genesis and Hebrews, specifically, was to point out AGAIN that while you are demanding “named sources” for Sacred Tradition, you do not require this of Sacred Scripture.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

.

I rely on Matthew, who traveled with the Lord, John, who traveled with the Lord, Mark(who learned from Peter), and Luke.

Actually and practically, you are also relying on their scribes, too. . .Oh, and the recommendation of the early Church which received and accepted their writings as inspired. . .Oh, and St. Jerome who translated the Scriptures into the vulgate. . .and, of course, the innumerable monks who transcribed the Scriptures to preserve them through the Middle Ages. . .not to mention, the editors and publishers of the particular publication of Scripture you are reading.

Primary sources are written first hand by people that are there. That is what a primary source is. Not to lecture but this is very technical definition.
"Original manuscripts, contemporary records, or documents (speeches, letters, interviews, diaries ) created at the time an event occurred."

I like your method of defining the terms as we go. . .Handy!

I was not aware that we were using text book terminology. However, it is widely held among Scripture scholars—especially when considering Old Testament Scripture—that certain distinctive oral traditions are “primary sources.” This is not limited, however, to Old Testament Scripture, as any student or scholar of ancient literature would certainly affirm the value of oral tradition as a viable primary source.

 

[JaneFrances]

JaneFrances: They are both the word of God. (referencing Scripture and Tradition)

Fredricks:

No.

Once again, your charge is to PROVE that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are NOT the Word of God. Your opinion is your own, but you have yet to provide any proof, Scriptural or otherwise, in support of this.

I, for my part, submit (according your terms—Scripture ALONE) that St. Paul, himself, attests to the equality of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” (1 Thess. 2:13)

Here, St. Paul makes no distinction of superiority between the written word (Scripture) and the spoken word (Tradition). In fact, his message is to commend the Thessalonians on their acceptance of the word which they “heard” as “the word of God.” This certainly does not exclude the written word, but the weight is on the word which was passed by means of hearing—tradition.

If you are contending that the early church had the written gospels in late 40 CE that would contradict what you wrote earlier concerning the date 400 CE

This is not my contention at all. I think you are mistaking the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the written narrative texts by the four evangelists which we commonly refer to as “the Gospels.” The four Gospels certainly are authoritative, Scriptural sources for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they are not essentially the same. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was in effect prior to the penning of the texts themselves. So, when I said that the church at Thessalonica was not “ignorant of the full gospel,” I was talking about the Gospel in it the strict sense. We know, despite the relatively late editions of the Gospel narrative texts, that the Church throughout the world was well aware of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ through the teaching authority of its leadership and its adherence to Tradition.

No one is arguing that the early church did not use oral tradition until the gospels were written and distributed.

No, but you are clearly arguing that once the gospels were “written and distributed” that the need for oral tradition was nullified. My argument, on the other hand, is that you have yet to prove this beyond your own presuppositions.

I think this more than proves my point. We are relying on the men who knew Jesus. You are relying on men who lived…how many years again after Jesus? Most of the people quoted on this site are writing 70 to 300 years after Jesus lived. Call me crazy for thinking the guys who actually knew him are more reliable.

Speaking of reliability. . .Why do you presume that I rely MORE on Tradition than I do Scripture? You have repeatedly pointed out my efforts to use Scripture to prove my position. That alone should be evidence enough of my deep reverence for Sacred Scripture and reliance upon it!

You, on the other hand, have created a simplified version of history that fits quite well into your theological schematic. All I’m asking of you is for you to honestly consider how it is that you came to even HAVE Scripture. By whose authority did the numerous narratives and letters which are not considered Scriptural (some penned by the very “men who knew Jesus”) get put aside in favor of the 27 books we accept as the New Testament?

Once again, I beg you. . .Please provide proof, Scriptural or otherwise (if you wish to stoop into the realm of tradition), that the written word is superior to tradition!

Do you really think John thought Polycarp more reliable than himself?

Since St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, I was unaware of any contest between the two. Nor am I aware of any disparity of message between the two.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

What is Sacred Tradition? I want a definition please. Where does one find it? How can it be accessed if this was Christs plan?

CCC paragraph 81: “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.”

Your very own history states that John did this.

Did what? What history? Please clarify.

What does Catholicism contend is the reason they wrote?

Why would they write it in the first place if they thought oral tradition would suffice?

Catholic apologists have, in my experience, ALWAYS avoided answering. Please do answer.

Is think that is a very fair question. I’m sorry you feel that others have avoided answering it.

I would presume, if indeed others have refused to answer it, that it may be based on the fact that most answers would be purely speculative, interpretative, or othewise extra-Biblical, thus making them unacceptable to most probing Protestants.

I like Luke’s reason:

“I too have carefully traced the whole sequence of events from the beginning, adn have decided to set it in writing for you, Theophilus, so that Your Excellency may see how reliable the instruction was that you recieved.” (Luke 1:3-4)

So, here, we see that Luke writes his narrative as a sort of support of Tradition. This is very important to this particular conversation, too! It is necessary to note that he does not claim that he writes it to make Tradition null and void. In fact, it seems he is affirming the reliablity of the oral instruction.

John’s reason is a little more broad:

“It is this same disciple who is the witness to these things; it is he who wrote them down and his testimony, we know, is true. There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in teh entire world to hold the books to record them.” (John 21:24-25)

So, while St. John does not specifically refer to tradition, he clearly alludes to the fact that there is a deposit of faith which even he does not include within his own narrative.

As for the other New Testament authors. . .There are many possibilities. I imagine, with the varied authors of Scirpture, that there are probably also varied reasons for why each man wrote what he did. Obviously, the synoptic evangelists wrote, in part, to document certain events and teachings of Jesus Christ. St. John’s gospel, with its unique nature and style, may have been written as a spiritual exercise for the benefit of the believers in addition to his desire to witness to the many events of Jesus life.

St. Paul, obviously, wrote to instruct individual local churches in the way of the Gospel. St. Peter wrote also to provide instruction and encouragement to the Church. It is all a matter of speculation, in any case. I think the simplest answer—in reference to the gospels—is the practical one. Many in the early Church thought that Jesus’ second coming would be within their own lifetime. Yet, as the early Christians realized that Jesus probably wasn’t coming again as soon as they anticipated, they wanted to record their observations and accounts for the growing Church. This does not indicate that they thought tradition would not suffice. It merely exhibits the natural inclination of humanity to pass on their experience in any and every way we can.

I believe that was all your points Fran

.

Most of them anyway. . .I get a little snippy when I’m tired, too, Fred!

Thanks for your continued interaction. Hopefully this conversation will bear fruit! Come Holy Spirit!

 

[Fredricks]

Although, I’m not entirely sure what “history” you are referring to

I thought that was the case. .

Have you really read all of the available texts attributed to Eusebius

You may have read but you have not retained.

,

,

then, suggested that you read Clement, Ignatius, Iranaeus, and Eusebius as contextual references.

My dear lady, if you only knew, but lets keep it that way for now.

Sorry, I thought you would have been familiar with the historical periods of Formation (100-220 AD), Discussion (220-367 AD), and Fixation (367-405 AD)

If you wish to assume a lack of historical knowledge on my part…

I was merely communicating my position on your terms. Under the present circumstances, I assume that if I had used Tradition or the Church Fathers to prove the equality of Scripture and Tradition, you would have had issue with that as well. I remind you, your contention is that Scripture ALONE is authoritative and you still have yet to prove the superiority of Scripture beyond your own tradition.

I am not trying to prove to you. I am debating you. Your participation is needed to be sure. I am reaching my audience, apparently quite well.
I intend to show that Sacred Tradition cannot be proven to go back to the Christ or the apostles.
Please answer this even if we have hit on it before.
Are you saying that it is not important to know the source of ones religious beliefs?

Nor, historically, is the criteria for the canonicity of Sacred Scripture held to the same standards of “named sources” that you demand of Sacred Tradition.

Not sure why you said this. We both accept the authority of scripture. You seem perplexed that I would think that beliefs that are not from Christ or the apostles should be proven. I wonder if you apply that same reasoning to all of the other faiths who believe something they have no historical proof of?

I remind you, again, we don’t know who wrote Hebrews, yet we still accept it as God’s Word.

That is correct. It is inspired and we both agree.

I, in no way, deny the role of Moses in the development of the entire Pentateuch, including Genesis. However, I think you would be very naïve to insist that Moses is the sole author of Genesis especially in light of the extensive scholarly research which identifies at least four primary historical traditions as sources for the development of the Torah. I’m equally disappointed.

It appears I am not as swayed by the liberal scholars.
Important Question
Does the Catholic Church endorse the Documentary Hypothesis or is this Jane’s “private interpretation”?

 

[Fredricks]

In any case, my point in mentioning the elusive authorship of Genesis and Hebrews, specifically, was to point out AGAIN that while you are demanding “named sources” for Sacred Tradition, you do not require this of Sacred Scripture.

Agreed. I have Matthew, who traveled with the Lord. John, who was intrusted with the care of his mother. Luke. Mark, as taught by Peter. Paul. James and Jude. Peter himself. A letter written to the Hebrews that both Catholics and Protestans think are inspired.
Who do you have again?

Actually and practically, you are also relying on their scribes, too. . .Oh, and the recommendation of the early Church which received and accepted their writings as inspired. . .Oh, and St. Jerome who translated the Scriptures into the vulgate. . .and, of course, the innumerable monks who transcribed the Scriptures to preserve them through the Middle Ages. . .not to mention, the editors and publishers of the particular publication of Scripture you are reading.

I am glad we agree that the Holy Spirit worked through these people.

I, for my part, submit (according your terms—Scripture ALONE) that St. Paul, himself, attests to the equality of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition:

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” (1 Thess. 2:13)

It is the word of God but people were just starting to put it into writing.

Here, St. Paul makes no distinction of superiority between the written word (Scripture) and the spoken word (Tradition). In fact, his message is to commend the Thessalonians on their acceptance of the word which they “heard” as “the word of God.”

How could he? It was not written yet.

.

We know, despite the relatively late editions of the Gospel narrative texts,

Whoa. How late? Nevermind, you will probably agree with the liberal scholars that are destroy both churches. Maybe not though. How late?

No, but you are clearly arguing that once the gospels were “written and distributed” that the need for oral tradition
was nullified

No
I said “My contention is the Bible is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.” .

Speaking of reliability. . .Why do you presume that I rely MORE on Tradition than I do Scripture?

The Protestants, respectfully, will find that comical. Maybe because if you took the NT and compared it to Catholicism you would see how differnt they are.

Once again, I beg you. . .Please provide proof, Scriptural or otherwise (if you wish to stoop into the realm of tradition), that the written word is superior to tradition!

Jane, I am. I have spent a great deal of time answering your objections. Most importantly I have given you numerous opportunities to prove that Sacred Tradition comes from Christ or the apostles. For my Protestant brothers, the argument is very powerful. I am not going scripture after this post. I have my way of doing this. Catholics like to debate certain verses they are familar with. In due time.

Since St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, I was unaware of any contest between the two. Nor am I aware of any disparity of message between the two

You did not answer an important question.

Where does one find it? How can it be accessed if this was Christs plan?

Did not answer these two. Its a set up too.

 

[Fredricks]

I like Luke’s reason:

“I too have carefully traced the whole sequence of events from the beginning, adn have decided to set it in writing for you, Theophilus, so that Your Excellency may see how reliable the instruction was that you recieved.” (Luke 1:3-4)

So, here, we see that Luke writes his narrative as a sort of support of Tradition. This is very important to this particular conversation, too! It is necessary to note that he does not claim that he writes it to make Tradition null and void. In fact, it seems he is affirming the reliablity of the oral instruction.

Well so much for my plan. You just used one of my best verses 5 o 6 posts too soon. Guys look at this. Luke wrote to show how reliable the oral tradition was. We agree that there was an oral tradition. We have that tradition now in writing. Luke indicates that writring it shows how reliable it is. Catholicism wants you to believe that Sarcred Tradition contains teachings that are just as important but they cannot tell you where they came from.

John’s reason is a little more broad:

“It is this same disciple who is the witness to these things; it is he who wrote them down and his testimony, we know, is true. There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in teh entire world to hold the books to record them.” (John 21:24-25)

John has a written testimony. Like Jane said it is more broad and not one of the nails in the coffin like what Luke said.

So, while St. John does not specifically refer to tradition, he clearly alludes to the fact that there is a deposit of faith which even he does not include within his own narrative.

No one denies this. You just want us to believe that you have it without proving it.

As for the other New Testament authors. . .There are many possibilities. I imagine, with the varied authors of Scirpture, that there are probably also varied reasons for why each man wrote what he did. Obviously, the synoptic evangelists wrote, in part, to document certain events and teachings of Jesus Christ. St. John’s gospel, with its unique nature and style, may have been written as a spiritual exercise for the benefit of the believers in addition to his desire to witness to the many events of Jesus life.

St. Paul, obviously, wrote to instruct individual local churches in the way of the Gospel. St. Peter wrote also to provide instruction and encouragement to the Church. It is all a matter of speculation, in any case. I think the simplest answer—in reference to the gospels—is the practical one. Many in the early Church thought that Jesus’ second coming would be within their own lifetime. Yet, as the early Christians realized that Jesus probably wasn’t coming again as soon as they anticipated, they wanted to record their observations and accounts for the growing Church. This does not indicate that they thought tradition would not suffice. It merely exhibits the natural inclination of humanity to pass on their experience in any and every way we can.

Thank you. You did answer the question. I am so appreciative I am actually not going to dissect it too much.
Guys, they wrote because the Holy Spirit inspired them to do such. Catholicism believes the authors were inspired too.
The key point is that they did write it down. Catholicism wants you to think of all the reasons why they did it except for the obvious, writing is a better means. They actually still think it is. They still are writing it down to this day with the Catechism.

Time to go on the offensive.
Did you know the early Christian writers had some interesting things to say about this issue? They are not inspired but over time we will show the development of Catholic doctrine and how different it looks from the Bible. Showing these writers will show you that the Catholic church will discount those sayings that disagree with them but keep those which do.

 

[Fredricks]

Early christians and scripture

People reading:
Remember
Jane will correctly point out that these men are not official representatives of Catholicism. I simply want to show you some quotes. Later on we will address the historical development of the early Christian church. Simply some quotes to get started. Remeber Catholicism paints a picture of a history that did not exist. The Orthodoxy forum is also a place to find a differing view of early Christian history.

Jane.
Only one question. It is an important one.
Has the definition of Sacred Tradition changed over time?

“Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, **we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” ** - Dionysius of Alexandria (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 7:24)

Athanasius
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; **for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; ** but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis, 6)

In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind…In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

Hippolytus
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

This has been and is an incredible learning tool, keep it up. I feel Fredrick is eloquently defining the Protestant side and Jane you are helping me understand Your beliefs very well, I only wish I was as well learned as the 2 of you.
God Bless the 2 of you.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

Early christians and scripture

People reading:
Remember
Jane will correctly point out that these men are not official representatives of Catholicism. I simply want to show you some quotes. Later on we will address the historical development of the early Christian church. Simply some quotes to get started. Remeber Catholicism paints a picture of a history that did not exist. The Orthodoxy forum is also a place to find a differing view of early Christian history.

[Quotes deleted for brevity.]

I’m not sure how these quotes show a Scripture-alone mentality among early writers. I think there is some confusion about what Catholics actually mean by Scripture plus Tradition.

We don’t mean that Scripture has half the information and Tradition has the rest. If we believed that then, yes, the quotes above would be great refutation. This is what we believe (in a nut-shell):

-Scripture is “materially sufficient”, meaning that Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation (isn’t that in agreement with the quotes above?).

-Everything we believe must be explicitly (like baptism) or implicitly (like the Trinity) taught in Scripture. We are not allowed to believe something that is a contradiction of Scripture (and I’m talking about the unity of Scripture, here, not proof-texting).

-Scripture is not “formally sufficient”, which means that, while Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation, Scripture cannot be interpreted by its “plain sense” or by personal interpretation.

-Tradition isn’t really “the other stuff” so much as it is our interpretive authority. For instance, Scripture tells us that we must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom. Tradition interprets that and tells us what baptism is supposed to look like.

Thus, the above quotes are in line with Catholic teaching. I agree with Ambrose when he wrote, “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” Or Eusebius, who wrote, “we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” Scripture is like a book of rules in baseball, in that the book of rules is materially sufficient to tell us all we need to know for playing baseball. However, without a good coach (who learned from good coaches, who learned from good coaches …), the book of rules is insufficient. The book of rules tells us we must hit the ball with the bat, but it is the interpretive authority of a good coach who shows us how to choke up, keep our eye on the ball, follow through, posture ourselves, read the coaches signs, lead off, etc. Imagine coaching a team the way many churches are run. Instead of relying on the time-tested wisdom of a good coach, one would hand the eight-year-olds a book of rules and say, “Don’t go by my opinion on how to play, guys. Read this book, let it speak to you, and be ready for the game in six weeks.” There would be as many interpretations of baseball, from that same book of rules, as their are kids playing. This is what has happened to Christianity under a sola-Scriptura mentality. Granted, all metaphors for the divine fall apart eventually, the point is still that we must have an authority to ensure proper interpretation.

Protestants have an easy time refuting Tradition when it is misrepresented as some other list of teachings. Tradition is the recording of the practice of those teachings, things which are better taught than written out, and this is why we cannot go by the “book of rules” alone.

 

[Fredricks]

I’m not sure how these quotes show a Scripture-alone mentality among early writers. I think there is some confusion about what Catholics actually mean by Scripture plus Tradition.

We don’t mean that Scripture has half the information and Tradition has the rest. If we believed that then, yes, the quotes above would be great refutation. This is what we believe (in a nut-shell):

-Scripture is “materially sufficient”, meaning that Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation (isn’t that in agreement with the quotes above?).

-Everything we believe must be explicitly (like baptism) or implicitly (like the Trinity) taught in Scripture. We are not allowed to believe something that is a contradiction of Scripture (and I’m talking about the unity of Scripture, here, not proof-texting).

-Scripture is not “formally sufficient”, which means that, while Scripture contains all that we need to know for salvation, Scripture cannot be interpreted by its “plain sense” or by personal interpretation.

-Tradition isn’t really “the other stuff” so much as it is our interpretive authority. For instance, Scripture tells us that we must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom. Tradition interprets that and tells us what baptism is supposed to look like.

Thus, the above quotes are in line with Catholic teaching. I agree with Ambrose when he wrote, “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” Or Eusebius, who wrote, “we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” Scripture is like a book of rules in baseball, in that the book of rules is materially sufficient to tell us all we need to know for playing baseball. However, without a good coach (who learned from good coaches, who learned from good coaches …), the book of rules is insufficient. The book of rules tells us we must hit the ball with the bat, but it is the interpretive authority of a good coach who shows us how to choke up, keep our eye on the ball, follow through, posture ourselves, read the coaches signs, lead off, etc. Imagine coaching a team the way many churches are run. Instead of relying on the time-tested wisdom of a good coach, one would hand the eight-year-olds a book of rules and say, “Don’t go by my opinion on how to play, guys. Read this book, let it speak to you, and be ready for the game in six weeks.” There would be as many interpretations of baseball, from that same book of rules, as their are kids playing. This is what has happened to Christianity under a sola-Scriptura mentality. Granted, all metaphors for the divine fall apart eventually, the point is still that we must have an authority to ensure proper interpretation.

Protestants have an easy time refuting Tradition when it is misrepresented as some other list of teachings. Tradition is the recording of the practice of those teachings, things which are better taught than written out, and this is why we cannot go by the “book of rules” alone.

From the second vatican council.

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate your personal interpretation of Catholic doctrine Awfulthings or if that summarizes someones elses view. One thing that i will do throughout the thread is touch on what Catholicism officially teaches about tradition. BUT I have to wait for Jane’s answer first, so I cannot jump the gun.
I appreciate your analogy. I will not hit on interpretation yet. When I do, might as well tell you, it will be straight from the historical sources that Catholicism contends are consistent in its interpretation. That will be another thread however. When that thread it done, protestants who are tempted to leave will be faced with a church that HAS changed their interpretations versus Scripture which has stayed consistent. THAT IS ANOTHER THREAD though.
Let me ask you a question though, do you think it is important to know where the sources of your traditions that are not found in the Bible come from? Do you think that it is important to follow what we know came from Christ himself or directly from the men who spent at least three years with him?

 

[Fredricks]

myfavoritmartin:

This has been and is an incredible learning tool, keep it up. I feel Fredrick is eloquently defining the Protestant side and Jane you are helping me understand Your beliefs very well, I only wish I was as well learned as the 2 of you.
God Bless the 2 of you.

Thank you my friend. I am glad that you and others are watching. It will take a long time to explain what Christianity looked like the first 100 years and how that differs from Catholicism today. Rest assured, you have the most accurate depiction of it in your possession when you hold the Holy Bible. May the Lord guide you on your journey and thank you for reading.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

From the second vatican council.

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate your personal interpretation of Catholic doctrine Awfulthings or if that summarizes someones elses view. One thing that i will do throughout the thread is touch on what Catholicism officially teaches about tradition. BUT I have to wait for Jane’s answer first, so I cannot jump the gun.
I appreciate your analogy. I will not hit on interpretation yet. When I do, might as well tell you, it will be straight from the historical sources that Catholicism contends are consistent in its interpretation. That will be another thread however. When that thread it done, protestants who are tempted to leave will be faced with a church that HAS changed their interpretations versus Scripture which has stayed consistent. THAT IS ANOTHER THREAD though.
Let me ask you a question though, do you think it is important to know where the sources of your traditions that are not found in the Bible come from? Do you think that it is important to follow what we know came from Christ himself or directly from the men who spent at least three years with him?

Amen! Excellent quote from the second Vatican council. As Scripture and Tradition spring from the same divine well-spring, there can be nothing in one that is a contradiction of the other - unless we pull proof-texts out of context. However, as the quote reaffirmed, Scripture is God’s word in written form. Tradition is the purity, or correct interpretation of that word.

And to answer your question, I do think it is important to know from where the sources of tradition spring. However, I’m afraid that in this discussion “Tradition” will be confused with lower-case “traditions” (which are disciplines that aren’t even claimed to be mandated in Scripture (such as preistly celibacy). And I think it will be further confused with the “magisterium”, which is the application of divine revelation to modern day developments and situations. Through the magisterium we have the development of doctrine. Did the definition of “Trinity” of three persons sharing one nature and working through one another come straight from the words of inspired Scripture? Of course not - this is a matter of development of doctrine given the evidence in Scripture. So, I hope that in this discussion - if you accept the development of doctrine in matters like the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ, you won’t point to other developed doctrine (through the magisterium, not Tradition) as evidence that “it will take a long time to explain what Christianity looked like the first 100 years and how that differs from Catholicism today.” Even the inspired authors of Scripture tell us that the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth (John 16) because the primary audience couldn’t handle that fullness at the time.

God bless

 

[awfulthings9]

One last note - it should be remembered that we believe that the magisterium has been deputized, so to speak, with the authority to loosen and bind, so to see the Church make rules or disciplines or adjust, not the interpretation, but the application of doctrine to fit special or evolving circumstances is perfectly in line with our view of the authority granted by Christ.

 

[Fredricks]

Amen! Excellent quote from the second Vatican council. As Scripture and Tradition spring from the same divine well-spring, there can be nothing in one that is a contradiction of the other - unless we pull proof-texts out of context. However, as the quote reaffirmed, Scripture is God’s word in written form. Tradition is the purity, or correct interpretation of that word.

And to answer your question, I do think it is important to know from where the sources of tradition spring. However, I’m afraid that in this discussion “Tradition” will be confused with lower-case “traditions” (which are disciplines that aren’t even claimed to be mandated in Scripture (such as preistly celibacy). And I think it will be further confused with the “magisterium”, which is the application of divine revelation to modern day developments and situations. Through the magisterium we have the development of doctrine. Did the definition of “Trinity” of three persons sharing one nature and working through one another come straight from the words of inspired Scripture? Of course not - this is a matter of development of doctrine given the evidence in Scripture. So, I hope that in this discussion - if you accept the development of doctrine in matters like the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ, you won’t point to other developed doctrine (through the magisterium, not Tradition) as evidence that “it will take a long time to explain what Christianity looked like the first 100 years and how that differs from Catholicism today.” Even the inspired authors of Scripture tell us that the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth (John 16) because the primary audience couldn’t handle that fullness at the time.

God bless

I do not accept any development of doctrine. I believe that scripture does not need developing. I suspect we believe the same thing about Trinity and Christ but I contend scripture gives us everything we need to know. As far as the primary audience could not handle it, I of course could not disagree more.
As far as the two different kinds of T(t) tradition, I do not confuse the two. Let me ask another question please(which is indirectly related to what will be my third point when Jane answers my question and we switch over to that), where do you go to find out which is which, big T or little t? Thanks.

 

[Fredricks]

awfulthings9:

One last note - it should be remembered that we believe that the magisterium has been deputized, so to speak, with the authority to loosen and bind, so to see the Church make rules or disciplines or adjust, not the interpretation, but the application of doctrine to fit special or evolving circumstances is perfectly in line with our view of the authority granted by Christ.

This will be useful for me later. Thanks you. You have summarized your view well

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

As far as the primary audience could not handle it, I of course could not disagree more.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree here, but it seems to be that the inspired authors felt that the primary audience could not handle, or “bear” it:

John 16:12-13 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.”

Hebrew 5: “About this we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing. Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, [and] not solid food. Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties are trained by practice to discern good and evil.”

Fredricks:

Where do you go to find out which is which, big T or little t? Thanks.

If you are asking on a practical level - you actually want to know for your own uses, Ludwig Van Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma defines the difference very nicely. If someone wanted to know in a hypothetical way, how the church community knows, I would answer that we consult the same sources van Ott did, the Church councils. This is, after all, the same source from which we get the definitive list of the New Testament cannon - from the Synod of Rome, followed by ratification at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. If we cannot trust the reliability of the councils for Tradition, as modeled by the council of Jerusalem in Acts, we cannot trust them for Scripture either, so the argument against use of Tradition would be, in essense, an argument against a definitely knowledge of the new testament table of contents itself. You might respond by arguing, as many Protestants do, that the Church councils only reaffirmed what the Christian community believed already (an acceptance of the 27 books). I would respond that the same could be said about the official pronouncements of Tradition.

 

[awfulthings9]

As a humorous aside, since you and I sparred a little on capitalization earlier, I’ll make note that I’m typing quickly and with reckless abandon today (a few things going), so if my posts resemble an e.e. cummings poem, I apologize.