Foundation

[Fredricks]

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.”

But Awful you have to finish the sentence! the primary audience needed the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth, that is all. If you just take the first part of the sentence you would be completely right but all that is being said is the primary audience needed the Holy Spirit to guide them. Not that they would add doctrine.

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.”

Scripture is full of people who had difficulty grasping the truth, because of this groups difficulty, they must be taught basic doctrine first, which I would agree with for everyone.

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.

sufficient explanation which will be addressed later, possibly depending on how this thread goes.
My strategy once again;

Point out the Sacred Tradition does not come from Christ or Apostles(which is going pretty well but I will hone it if needed) and I am surprised at the lack of Sacred Traditions listed, or even tradtions, and when they actually originated.

The early church did recognize the primacy of scripture. Not in the sense Protestants do in many cases. Surprisingly, not in the sense Catholics do either.

Third. Lets just say. History. Documents.

Fourth. Bible

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

But Awful you have to finish the sentence! the primary audience needed the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth, that is all. If you just take the first part of the sentence you would be completely right but all that is being said is the primary audience needed the Holy Spirit to guide them. Not that they would add doctrine.

Fredricks, I don’t mind you disagreeing with me, but please don’t change what I said in order to refute it. I never said or implied that the Holy Spirit would guide them to “add” doctrine. We were discussing (and I was responding to you challenge on) “development” of doctrine, which means that the doctrine was always there, but perhaps in a very basic, rudimentary or misunderstood (from lack of being able to “bear it”) form - but not added. Even the full sentence supports what I said because you, in your explanation, paraphrased what I said, that “the Holy Spirit [would] guide them to all truth.” If they could understand all truth with what had been written in the epistle, as sola-Scriptura proponents claim, then the Holy Spirit would have no work to do. However, the doctrine needed to be developed, or understood more maturely, as the Christian community matured.

Fredricks:

The early church did recognize the primacy of scripture. Not in the sense Protestants do in many cases. Surprisingly, not in the sense Catholics do either.

This agrees with my point completely. The early church needed to mature, so it makes sense that, as Scripture tells us, our understanding of Christianity and all of its depth, is something God must lead us into. Again, development of doctrine.

I also agree that the early church recognized the primacy of Scripture - for what it was intended - material sufficiency - no other source could provide that. However, the very fact that we have early church writings to discuss shows that Scripture was not, in and of itself, sufficient for understanding. After all, those early church writings are, themselves, expositions of the interpretation of Scripture and of the doctrines contained materially. These expositions were always accompanied by a theological expounding that went far beyond the essential text of Scripture - thus, we see the interpretive authority at work in the pronouncement of the [material] primacy of Scripture.

 

[Fredricks]

Awful, yes I see what you mean at first. I put that part about adding doctrine because that is what I think they did. You would have a different perspective that would not state that so you are right, that is not what you said. It is just what I thought happened.
You hit once again on interpretation and I cannot go that route yet. I know you are chomping at the bit to get to it but I really have to stay focused here.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

Point out the Sacred Tradition does not come from Christ or Apostles(which is going pretty well but I will hone it if needed) and I am surprised at the lack of Sacred Traditions listed, or even tradtions, and when they actually originated.

You wrote in our original exchange that you don’t deal well with sensitive people - I think it is inappropriate that you seem to slip into the opposite extreme. Perhaps you could tone down, not your arguments, but the arrogance demonstrated in statements like “which is going pretty well, but I will hone it if needed”. Aside from your self-assessment of your own argument, the implication is that us poor Catholics might need you to back off. Let’s do as you once suggested and stick to the facts.

Secondly, by asking for a “list” of Sacred Traditions and dates of origin, your request is a bit silly. You are the one claiming dates of origin for these Sacred Traditions, and we are claiming that they have been a part of the Christian community from the start. We can’t provide dates if we believe those dates to be artificial or contrived. Secondly, you seem to insist, despite my explanation, that Tradition is a material source, as opposed to interpretive. It is something alive, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the very nature of the teaching church. To insist that it should be simply to provide the “list” of Tradition implies that you feel it is a material entity. Again, you may disagree with my assessment that is not, but I shouldn’t have the obligation to provide evidence of a form that I don’t believe applies to the subject. However, I did provide a rudimentary list (in as much as it can be expressed in material form) in the book reference I gave. Was this not sufficient for you?

Again, God bless.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

Awful, yes I see what you mean at first. I put that part about adding doctrine because that is what I think they did. You would have a different perspective that would not state that so you are right, that is not what you said. It is just what I thought happened.
You hit once again on interpretation and I cannot go that route yet. I know you are chomping at the bit to get to it but I really have to stay focused here.

I see we’re crossing posts. Since you and I disagree on “interpretation” and you want to hold that for another post, I’ll respect that and will end that discussion unless your response to my just-posted points compells me to respond.

 

[Fredricks]

QUOTE=awfulthings9]You wrote in our original exchange that you don’t deal well with sensitive people - I think it is inappropriate that you seem to slip into the opposite extreme. Perhaps you could tone down, not your arguments, but the arrogance demonstrated in statements like “which is going pretty well, but I will hone it if needed”. Aside from your self-assessment of your own argument, the implication is that us poor Catholics might need you to back off. Let’s do as you once suggested and stick to the facts.

I have told it is going well. I have invited others to read and have been contacted by some I did not invite.

Secondly, by asking for a “list” of Sacred Traditions and dates of origin, your request is a bit silly.

No it is not. If they are extrabiblical and part of Catholicism asking for them to be stated and where they came from is not silly at all.

You are the one claiming dates of origin for these Sacred Traditions, and we are claiming that they have been a part of the Christian community from the start.

Then prove the second statement.

We can’t provide dates if we believe those dates to be artificial or contrived.

Biblical truth can be traced back to a specific time, granted some flexibility, but it can. Sacred Tradition cannot.

Secondly, you seem to insist, despite my explanation, that Tradition is a material source, as opposed to interpretive.

Has the interpretation been codified?

It is something alive, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the very nature of the teaching church. To insist that it should be simply to provide the “list” of Tradition implies that you feel it is a material entity.

How can this alive thing be accessed from my computer? I prefer primary sources.

Again, you may disagree with my assessment that is not, but I shouldn’t have the obligation to provide evidence of a form that I don’t believe applies to the subject. However, I did provide a rudimentary list (in as much as it can be expressed in material form) in the book reference I gave. Was this not sufficient for you?

No it is not.
Not at all.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

I have told it is going well. I have invited others to read and have been contacted by some I did not invite.

I’m sure you have. I think you are doing a great job of supporting your point, even though I disagree enough with it to have jumped in. I’m simply asking, as you did, to stick to the facts and leave the character assessment (both of yourself and us) behind. Is that unreasonable?

Fredricks:

No it is not. If they are extrabiblical and part of Catholicism asking for them to be stated and where they came from is not silly at all.

Again, I did provide a list in the book I recommended. Addressed below. I answered where they came from - the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The same question could be asked of the content of Scripture as most of it was passed orally for some time (at least with the gospels). One could argue that much of the New Testament is “extrabiblical” in the sense that “Scripture” for the early Christians, was the Old Testament. Without a church with teaching authority, tou would have the same trouble justifying the selection of books as you are saying we have with Tradition (in fact I brought this point up earlier and you didn’t addresss it). Likewise, the same question could be applied to dating the selection of the New Testament cannon. Perhaps you could provide the same evidence for these that you are asking from us regarding Tradition.

Fredricks:

Then prove the second statement.

The Jewish community believed in an interpretively authoritive Tradition that went hand-in-hand with Scripture. Proof of this would be the diffficulty in reconstructing a sin-offering from Scripture alone. That said, this method of transmitting revelation would have naturally continued into the fullfillment of the Jewish religion - Christianity. Thus, the burden of proof is upon those who insist upon the change - adherents to sola-Scriptura.

Fredricks:

Biblical truth can be traced back to a specific time, granted some flexibility, but it can. Sacred Tradition cannot.

Sure it can. As much as Biblical truth. The earliest copies we have of the New Testament text are no less than a few hundred years old. Thus, we have to trust their reliability. Likewise, just because I can only trace early Christian church writings to a certain date does not argue against the fact that these beliefs had been a part of the community from an earlier point. Can you, after all, “prove” that the texts we have today are identical to the inspired text (save translational errors)? Well, you would provide very good circumstantial evidence. If this is good enough for Scripture, it is a double-standard to not accept it for Tradition.

Fredricks:

Has the interpretation been codified?

In as much as it can, through the documents of doctrinal councils. Has the table of contents of Scripture been codified? Again, the same answer.

Fredricks:

How can this alive thing be accessed from my computer? I prefer primary sources.

As your computer didn’t exist through most of the history of the Church (and wasn’t necessary for the first Christians), I’m sorry that you “prefer” it, but I will go by the methods accessable for early Christians - a teaching authority.

Fredricks:

No it is not.
Not at all.

Explain why. If I provide this as an answer to your request, it is a little unfair to reject it without an intelligent refutation of what it provides. You have read the book before casting judgement on its sufficiency, right?

-Blessings

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

Then prove the second statement.

You know, in reading over this thread, I see so many places where you have been asked to provide proof for your beliefs and have either changed the subject or failed to do so. Case in point, when Jane asked for the same evidence of you that you ask of me, your response was:

“I am not trying to prove to you. I am debating you. Your participation is needed to be sure.”

I’m sorry, but if you are going to make a claim, you should be able to back it up. You INSIST that we do.

In another post, you responded that “You did answer the question. I am so appreciative I am actually not going to dissect it too much.”

I’m sorry, but this is just a back-handed compliment allowing you to pretend superiority in the argument while avoiding her better points.

I, frankly, don’t have the energy to continue the conversations when you dismiss the burden of proof or points put upon you by those who are discussing my side. Why do you do this?

 

[Fredricks]

Is that unreasonable?

No.

The same question could be asked of the content of Scripture as most of it was passed orally for some time (at least with the gospels). One could argue that much of the New Testament is “extrabiblical” in the sense that “Scripture” for the early Christians, was the Old Testament.

OT is biblical. That sounded like Marcion.
Awful, you are confusing a very simple point. The New Testament was written by men who were there and then WROTE about it.

Without a church with teaching authority, tou would have the same trouble justifying the selection of books as you are saying we have with Tradition (in fact I brought this point up earlier and you didn’t addresss it).

Catholicism and Protestants agree on biblical inspiration. If you wish to discuss why, it is another thread I BELIEVE. I am not sure you think it is though or you would not keep mentioning it.

Likewise, the same question could be applied to dating the selection of the New Testament cannon. Perhaps you could provide the same evidence for these that you are asking from us regarding Tradition.
Rephrase please. I am not sure what you mean.

The Jewish community believed in an interpretively authoritive Tradition that went hand-in-hand with Scripture. Proof of this would be the diffficulty in reconstructing a sin-offering from Scripture alone. That said, this method of transmitting revelation would have naturally continued into the fullfillment of the Jewish religion - Christianity. Thus, the burden of proof is upon those who insist upon the change - adherents to sola-Scriptura.

Yes they did. Christ though, believed his interpretation superior(you guys think this as well), which we follow through the New Testament

Sure it can. As much as Biblical truth. The earliest copies we have of the New Testament text are no less than a few hundred years old. Thus, we have to trust their reliability.

Yes.

Likewise, just because I can only trace early Christian church writings to a certain date does not argue against the fact that these beliefs had been a part of the community from an earlier point.

Huge difference. We know who wrote the New Testament books, except Hebrews. Sacred Tradition is pure and simple from an unknown source.

Can you, after all, “prove” that the texts we have today are identical to the inspired text (save translational errors)?

No. Do not take the liberals position to strengthen your own.
Having said that, we can prove who wrote them.

Well, you would provide very good circumstantial evidence. If this is good enough for Scripture, it is a double-standard to not accept it for Tradition.

No. No. We have the writings of the men who walked with Jesus. Catholicism agrees with that fact. We have their actual writings. Primary sources Awful. That means so little to you that you accept hearsay, at best, instead of what these men wrote?
The two are not equal in any way. You would never think this in any other circumstance. These men walked with him, ate with him, slept next to him, knew his mother, listed to him for THREE years and you think it is reasonable that UNKNOWN sources are on equal footing? There is not another example that you would apply this logic to and I think you would agree with that.

 

[Fredricks]

awfulthings9:

You know, in reading over this thread, I see so many places where you have been asked to provide proof for your beliefs and have either changed the subject or failed to do so. Case in point, when Jane asked for the same evidence of you that you ask of me, your response was:

“I am not trying to prove to you. I am debating you. Your participation is needed to be sure.”

I’m sorry, but if you are going to make a claim, you should be able to back it up. You INSIST that we do.

In another post, you responded that “You did answer the question. I am so appreciative I am actually not going to dissect it too much.”

I’m sorry, but this is just a back-handed compliment allowing you to pretend superiority in the argument while avoiding her better points.

I, frankly, don’t have the energy to continue the conversations when you dismiss the burden of proof or points put upon you by those who are discussing my side. Why do you do this?

You said to stick to facts
Awful and then you do this?

 

[awfulthings9]

Again, you avoided giving your proof for every point I made.

If you read the OP, mine, you will see that this thread was designed to put the burden of proof on sola-Scriptura. Have respect for that and take the burden of proof. You’ve hijacked the thread for your own “debate”.

 

[JaneFrances]

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.

 

[JaneFrances]

Me:

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

Fred:

I thought that was the case. .

Me:

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

Fred:

You may have read but you have not retained.

The extent of my “retention” only goes so far, it’s true. However, regarding Eusebius, I doubted that his works would be the sole source for your historical analysis and doctrinal positions.

So, let me see if I’m following. . .Eusebius is reliable in all matters—or at least enough to afford you the assurance that the Catholic Church is wrong. Which I believe was your original posture:

How any Catholic can read Eusebius and see the Catholic church is befuddling to me

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but all I can surmise is that you have read and “retained” all of the writings of Eusebius and have found them categorically reliable and authoritative enough to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Interesting.

Another constant point you make is that Catholics tend to accept those early Church Fathers’ writings which are substantiated by the Church and reject those which are not harmonious with Church teaching. This, as you have suggested, is a weakness in the Church’s position.

My questions, then—thanks to your affection for and familiarity with Eusebius—becomes::

Do you agree with Eusebius regarding the Arian heresy (specifically his objection to the term “homousios”)? Do you find Eusebius credible regarding the canonicity of Peter’s second epistle? Do you agree with Eusebius that St. Peter is “the great and mighty one among the Apostles”? The list could go on. . .

Or, perhaps, do you just accept those accounts and opinions of Eusebius which are consistent with your personal opinion and tradition?

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

How utterly mysterious. . .I’m just waiting for the Super Man cape to come flying out!

 

[JaneFrances]

Me:

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)

Fred:

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

Please be assured, I have assumed nothing of the kind. I was simply expressing my surprise at your request for me to:

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

My answer was to give you the context for my assertion that the Church had no compiled and authoritative catalogue of New Testament Scripture, as we accept it today, until the late 300’s.

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 understand now your intentions. I, for my part, would rather seek truth than win debates. I congratulate you on your audience. I did not realize that I was a player in your performance. I was under the, obviously false, impression that we were serving Christ which, I assure you, is never a performance art for me.

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?

I am not saying and have never said such a thing.
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 said this because I am making the point that, while you are want to admit it thus far, you are accepting the New Testament canon of Scripture based on the recommendation of the Catholic Church. The “named sources” that you rely on are only known to you through the witness and ratification of the early Church. And, as in the case of Hebrews, for instance, you KNOW that it is Scriptural not because you have a “named source,” but because you trust the group of men (some of whom may even qualify, according to your terms, as “unnamed” themselves) who said so.

Apart from ancient Judaism, I have little personal interest in “other faiths” outside of Christianity. So, my application of reasoning regarding their faith and doctrines are of no import beyond natural curiosity and practical apologetics. I certainly do not expect religions that reject the Lord to adhere to the same standard as Christians, in any case.
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.

But, WHY exactly do you agree?

If your criteria for authority is a “named source,” I do not understand—apart from the authority of the Church—how you could possibly accept this book?

Important Question
Does the Catholic Church endorse the Documentary Hypothesis or is this Jane’s “private interpretation”?

If my “private interpretation”—on any subject–is at all in conflict with the Church’s official teaching, I humbly defer.

Having said that, my understanding of the Church’s position on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is based on the ecclesiastical decisions recommended by the Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906 regarding this very question.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fred,

Here’s the thing. I trust in the reliability of Tradition for the same reason that I rely in the reliability of Scripture - because I have the authority of a teaching church (guided by God) behind it.

When you dismiss my claims for you to prove your point, you label them as Marcionistic or liberal. Or you conclude that Catholics and Protestants agree on Scripture, so it is beside the point.

My point, Fred, is that I, like you, disagree with the liberals. However, I do so because I can trust the teaching church. I am asking for you to explain how you can disagree with them given your rejection of that same teaching authority. To that end, you have repeatedly ignored my points about the table of contents.

My argument is that it is by the very means that we reject the liberal (and Da Vinci Code) Christians that we accept Tradition. The arguments that you are using against Catholic Tradition is the same arguments that liberals and Marcion would use against your foundation.

Since you reject the idea of an authoritative teaching church, you must establish the credibility of your beliefs from scratch in here. That is only fair, especially as you’ve asked us to do the same.

And in response to the idea that Catholics and Protestants accept Scripture as authoritative, so I shouldn’t be bringing it up - that is a bandwagon assumption. We cannot continue exploring Tradition until we establish the validity of our foundation in Scripture. Just because both our camps agree doesn’t matter. We will not be judged on assumptions.

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

Me:

Fred:

Me:

Fred:

The extent of my “retention” only goes so far, it’s true. However, regarding Eusebius, I doubted that his works would be the sole source for your historical analysis and doctrinal positions.

So, let me see if I’m following. . .Eusebius is reliable in all matters—or at least enough to afford you the assurance that the Catholic Church is wrong. Which I believe was your original posture:

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but all I can surmise is that you have read and “retained” all of the writings of Eusebius and have found them categorically reliable and authoritative enough to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Interesting.

Another constant point you make is that Catholics tend to accept those early Church Fathers’ writings which are substantiated by the Church and reject those which are not harmonious with Church teaching. This, as you have suggested, is a weakness in the Church’s position.

My questions, then—thanks to your affection for and familiarity with Eusebius—becomes::

Do you agree with Eusebius regarding the Arian heresy (specifically his objection to the term “homousios”)? Do you find Eusebius credible regarding the canonicity of Peter’s second epistle? Do you agree with Eusebius that St. Peter is “the great and mighty one among the Apostles”? The list could go on. . .

Or, perhaps, do you just accept those accounts and opinions of Eusebius which are consistent with your personal opinion and tradition?

How utterly mysterious. . .I’m just waiting for the Super Man cape to come flying out!

I do think Eusebius is a wonderful historian, yes.I do think he is a valuable argument when dealing with how Catholics see their history. I am not sure if you wish me to answer anything else or if that covers it. I do not consider him infallible and you know that.
I

 

[Fredricks]

Please be assured, I have assumed nothing of the kind. I was simply expressing my surprise at your request for me to

My answer was to give you the context for my assertion that the Church had no compiled and authoritative catalogue of New Testament Scripture, as we accept it today, until the late 300’s.

Fredricks is my surname.
We agree.

I understand now your intentions. I, for my part, would rather seek truth than win debates. I congratulate you on your audience. I did not realize that I was a player in your performance. I was under the, obviously false, impression that we were serving Christ which, I assure you, is never a performance art for me.

In the field of apologetics, performance matters. Rest assured the stakes are high.

I said this because I am making the point that, while you are want to admit it thus far, you are accepting the New Testament canon of Scripture based on the recommendation of the Catholic Church.

Oriental Orthodox or any other form of Orthodoxy? Recommendation?? What a demeaning of the power of the Holy Spirit.

The “named sources” that you rely on are only known to you through the witness and ratification of the early Church. And, as in the case of Hebrews, for instance, you KNOW that it is Scriptural not because you have a “named source,” but because you trust the group of men (some of whom may even qualify, according to your terms, as “unnamed” themselves) who said so.

No I trust the Holy Spirit.

Apart from ancient Judaism, I have little personal interest in “other faiths” outside of Christianity. So, my application of reasoning regarding their faith and doctrines are of no import beyond natural curiosity and practical apologetics. I certainly do not expect religions that reject the Lord to adhere to the same standard as Christians, in any case.
I remind you, again, we don’t know who wrote Hebrews, yet we still accept it as God’s Word.

Just pointing out an inconsistency in what you require

But, WHY exactly do you agree?

If your criteria for authority is a “named source,” I do not understand—apart from the authority of the Church—how you could possibly accept this book?

The Holy Spirit used this council, which by the way, is not the Catholic church.

If my “private interpretation”—on any subject–is at all in conflict with the Church’s official teaching, I humbly defer.

As I would expect.

Having said that, my understanding of the Church’s position on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is based on the ecclesiastical decisions recommended by the Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906 regarding this very question.
The Biblical commision, that would be a good thread some time as well. Many Catholics on here undoubtedly have a lot to say about that one!

 

[JaneFrances]

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?

I’m a little uncomfortable “having” anyone. I am a member of His Holy Body, the Church. I don’t view this as a matter of personal possession.

But having said that. . .

I “have” the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, of which St. Matthew, St. John, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. James, St. Jude, the “unnamed” author of Hebrews, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, etc, etc., etc., are ministers, leaders, and Fathers. I “have” the Church councils as led by the Apostolic successors. I rely on the Church, “the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim. 2:15).

And I would suggest that you “have” more than you realize.

Me:

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)

Fred:

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

Yet, again, you have to prove that once people “put it into writing” that the case for truth and the full deposit of faith was closed.

No one is arguing against the authority of Scripture here.

The question remains, how do you know that once the inspired authors of Scripture “put it into writing” that Tradition was no longer needed or became inferior?

Me:

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.”

Fred:

How could he? It was not written yet.

First, St. Paul was writing it. Scripture was being written at the very moment he penned his first letter to the Thessalonians. The distinction of the superiority of Scripture over Tradition, if it was ever an issue, could very well have been a main point of his in this first letter—which, obviously, it was not.

AND, hypothetically. . . He COULD have said “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you have received the word of God, in its complete written form, which you also heard from us in an inferior form, 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. And once you have receive this word, in its superior written form, you may then discount any other word not contained in the written word as penned by myself, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Peter, and James—oh, and the guy who is going to write to the Hebrews.”

That would have made your case.

Still, you have yet to prove that St. Paul thought that his written correspondences supplanted the need for tradition—beyond your own “private interpretation,” that is.

Me:

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

Fred:

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

Well, most Scripture scholars—Catholic and Protestant—with whom I am familiar (granting that I do not claim to have an exhaustive list of everyone who has ever had an opinion on this topic) contend that Matthew’s gospel was written sometime after 70 AD, but before 110 AD. Mark’s gospel was probably written around 70 AD. Early Christian tradition holds the dating of the Lucan gospel and the Acts as around 75 AD. And the current scholarship—Catholic and Protestant—contends that the final compilation of John’s gospel was available sometime between 90 AD and 100 AD.

My “relatively late edition” reference was made considering that Paul’s letters are widely considered to have been written at least 20 years prior to the first gospel narrative.

 

[JaneFrances]

Me:

you are clearly arguing that once the gospels were “written and distributed” that the need for oral tradition
was nullified

Fred:

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

Yes, I actually “retained” that and clearly remember it having been one of your original contentions!

However, throughout the course of this discussion you have repeatedly made the point that once Scripture was written, it became a superior authority to Tradition.

You haven’t proved that.

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.

Great new thread! Maybe you can begin it once you have stopped laughing.

Fred:

You did not answer an important question.

Fred asked:

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

I answered:

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.

So, to clarify. . .I have no indication that the reliability of Polycarp versus John is in question–beyond Fred’s own curiosity. Nor do I have any sources (written “named” or otherwise) which would indicate that John ever articulated his own position on the matter. So, anything I would say would be merely speculative and extra-biblical—which I’m sure you would discount on those merits alone.

 

[montanaman]

Fred’s only debating for the sake of debating? Nice. Any admiring audience of Fred’s is probably sharp as a box of rocks. If they have the equivalent of his understanding of the Catholic Church and scripture, there isn’t much we can do. You can’t put information in someone’s head, after all.