Having a crisis in Catholic faith: Sola scriptura vs Apostolic Tradition

[CurlySmirly]

I’ve been reading about how most if not all of the Church’s teachings go back to the Church Fathers in the first few centuries AD. Unfortunately I’ve come to question the idea of how we can be sure of the validity of the traditions which were formed after the time of the apostles and Paul. For example, Protestants will often ask where something like prayer to the saints or the sinlessness of Mary is in the Bible. The answer to these things is that they’re not explicitly in the Bible, but that they can be deducted from the teachings which are revealed in the Bible, i.e., that there is a communion between those on Earth and those in heaven through baptism and life in Christ. My new concern is - how can we be sure of any evolution of doctrine that is not explicitly condoned by the apostles? If the veneration of saints was not a thing until around the 2nd century, what makes them biblical and Christian?

 

[adf417]

My new concern is - how can we be sure of any evolution of doctrine that is not explicitly condoned by the apostles? If the veneration of saints was not a thing until around the 2nd century, what makes them biblical and Christian?

How can you be sure of the bible itself? It didn’t come into existence as you know It for yet another 2 centuries.

Peace!!!

 

[Justin_Mary]

If the veneration of saints was not a thing until around the 2nd century, what makes them biblical and Christian?

Forget about “biblical & Christian” it wasn’t a thing until the 16th century.

Instead look for Apostolic, Universal, Holy, & One. For most of our beliefs we can look at the Orthodox. Even though they expressed differently the understanding is generally the same.

 

[stpurl]

As another poster mentioned, first, the Bible itself was not codified until around AD 385 (near the end of the fourth century). So why are you claiming it as an authority? Only a person can be an authority. A book does not interpret itself. And yet, if two different people read the same passage(s) and come to different conclusions, there has to be a way to know who has come to the correct conclusion, right?

Jesus did not say, “I’m writing a book for you people to follow as you interpret”, He said “I am establishing a Church”—the pillar and foundation of truth, protected by the Holy Spirit.

It was that same Church which codified the Bible for all. It was that same Church which exists today.

That Church is the Catholic Church. With its sister the Orthodox, two ‘lungs’, the Church of the West and the Church of the East, though currently they are differing on some technicalities, none of which would permanently hinder their unification —and make no doubt, they WILL be One before the end—THAT Church has stood firm like the house built on rock, even when the waves have battered against it and damaged it inside and out. It will not fail. The protestant churches are strongest where they actually accept and practice teachings that the Catholic Church teaches, because there they are following the fullness of truth. The protestant churches are weakest where they ‘protest’, just as our Catholic Church has individuals within it who become weak when THEY protest through their failure, even though members of the Church, to believe and support her and try to distort or ignore its teachings.

 

[JerryZ]

Hmm the ancient Israelite did have Saints that the Catholic Church recognizes to this day.
Moses, Elijah, Abraham and many others were considered Holy from antiquity and were revered. You can read in the Bible here:

II Kings 13:20 Then Elisha died, and they buried him. And the robbers from Moab came into the land in the same year.
13:21 But certain ones who were burying a man saw the robbers, and they cast the dead body into the sepulcher of Elisha. But when it had touched the bones of Elisha, the man revived, and he stood upon his feet./quote>
And did not Jesus say in Matthew 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
So Jesus is explicitly telling us that these people are alive and NOT dead.
Is it not all of this in the Bible? The Church has been here for 2000+ years it does not teach falsehood. But the truth as received by Jesus through the Apostles.
Peace!

 

[TK421]

I’ve been reading about how most if not all of the Church’s teachings go back to the Church Fathers in the first few centuries AD. Unfortunately I’ve come to question the idea of how we can be sure of the validity of the traditions which were formed after the time of the apostles and Paul. For example, Protestants will often ask where something like prayer to the saints or the sinlessness of Mary is in the Bible. The answer to these things is that they’re not explicitly in the Bible, but that they can be deducted from the teachings which are revealed in the Bible, i.e., that there is a communion between those on Earth and those in heaven through baptism and life in Christ. My new concern is - how can we be sure of any evolution of doctrine that is not explicitly condoned by the apostles? If the veneration of saints was not a thing until around the 2nd century, what makes them biblical and Christian?

The Biblical canon comes after-the-fact, so you can’t trust what is written down in the canon unless you already trust Apostolic Succession.

 

[ReaderT]

My new concern is - how can we be sure of any evolution of doctrine that is not explicitly condoned by the apostles?

Easy! Writing has been around for 5,000 years and didn’t stop when Jesus left the earth - the Apostles wrote, but the Apostles’ disciples also wrote (ex: St. Ignatius of Antioch), the disciples of those disciples wrote (Irenaeus of Lyons), etc.

From Ignatius of Antioch (108 A.D.), for example, we get evidence of the three orders of Clergy (Bishops - Priests - Deacons), the Real Presence, the deity of Christ, etc. etc. etc.

If the veneration of saints was not a thing until around the 2nd century, what makes them biblical and Christian?

Veneration of Saints (and their relics) is in the Bible:

• “When handkerchiefs or aprons that had merely touched [St. Paul’s] body were placed on sick people, they were healed of their diseases, and evil spirits were expelled…” (Acts 19:12)
• “And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.” (2 Kings 13:21)

 

[Dan_Defender]

But it is in the Bible:
‘And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints’ - Rev 5:8

Also, The Shepherd of Hermas, which was part of several Bible codices before the canon was set, and dates to the first century, has a passage about Hermas getting the intercession of his angel (The Shepherd).

 

[annem]

The Biblical canon comes after-the-fact, so you can’t trust what is written down in the canon unless you already trust Apostolic Succession.

Where did we even get the idea of tradition? From the Second Temple Jews, and from St Paul, who, in the very first Christian writings, the epistles, talked about it. The Jews called it the Oral Tradition, and it was later written down about 100 AD.

From the very first day of Christianity tradition went hand in hand with the scriptures (although at first the Christians meant the OT) and were thought of as equally important.

how we can be sure of the validity of the traditions which were formed after the time of the apostles and Paul.

Because of the vast reverence that the ancient Jews gave the Oral Tradition. They were fanatical in their desire to pass it on perfectly. No, it is nothing like the stupid game of telephone a certain Barty Ehrman keeps mentioning. Here is a book on the subject: History of Jewish Education from 515 BC to 220 AD Nathan Drazin.

Okay, so today in our time of cultural breakdown and educational collapse, you may find it hard to believe anyone could accurately pass anything on. In that case, pick up Wax Tablets of the Mind by J P Small.

 

[CurlySmirly]

To clarify, I understand Apostolic succession and the validity of oral tradition, but I’ve got it in my head that what the traditions were things like Baptism, the Eucharist, etc. I’m wondering about the things that are seemlingly absent from the Bible such as praying to saints and the assumption. I guess I’ve somehow developed the idea that anything the bible neglects to talk about must be prohibited, even if these ideas don’t necessarily contradict the Bible.

 

[Bithynian]

the idea that anything the bible neglects to talk about must be prohibited, even if these ideas don’t necessarily contradict the Bible.

As @Justin_Mary mentioned above, it’s helpful to distance oneself from that particular mode of thinking. Prior to the Reformation, the notion of an exclusively biblical basis of a doctrine or practice was quite foreign to both Western and Eastern Christianity.

Even now in the 21st century amongst Eastern Christians (Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox), Scripture and Tradition are largely conceptualised as being synonymous. They are one and the same in the sense that they are communicators of apostolic teachings.

 

[Maximian]

One of the guarantees of authentic tradition is that it was taught simultaneously by the different churches as far apart as Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome

 

[adf417]

To clarify, I understand Apostolic succession and the validity of oral tradition, but I’ve got it in my head that what the traditions were things like Baptism, the Eucharist, etc. I’m wondering about the things that are seemlingly absent from the Bible such as praying to saints and the assumption. I guess I’ve somehow developed the idea that anything the bible neglects to talk about must be prohibited, even if these ideas don’t necessarily contradict the Bible.

And to clarify my point, apostolic succession gives us much more than baptism and the Eucharist. It gives us the bible itself. This should give you pause for looking to the bible for justification of doctrine and look to that which gave us the bible, Holy Mother Church.

But if you wish - does the quote above from @Dan_Defender about Rev 5:8 help? How about 2 Macc 12:41-46?

Peace!!!

 

[Montrose]

To clarify, I understand Apostolic succession and the validity of oral tradition, but I’ve got it in my head that what the traditions were things like Baptism, the Eucharist, etc. I’m wondering about the things that are seemlingly absent from the Bible such as praying to saints and the assumption. I guess I’ve somehow developed the idea that anything the bible neglects to talk about must be prohibited, even if these ideas don’t necessarily contradict the Bible.

So you are not allowed to use a computer as it is not mentioned in the Bible!

 

[kapp19]

St. Irenaeus, disciple of St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John, disciple of Christ, gives us the answer for his own age (in Against Heresies): look to the sees (“dioceses”) founded by apostles… That is where you will find the “regula fide,” the “rule of faith” preserved… and Rome is the where the buck stops.

 

[1ke]

I guess I’ve somehow developed the idea that anything the bible neglects to talk about must be prohibited, even if these ideas don’t necessarily contradict the Bible.

Which is a heresy.

Get it out of your head!!

 

[Hume]

I’ve been reading about how most if not all of the Church’s teachings go back to the Church Fathers in the first few centuries AD. Unfortunately I’ve come to question the idea of how we can be sure of the validity of the traditions which were formed after the time of the apostles and Paul. For example, Protestants will often ask where something like prayer to the saints or the sinlessness of Mary is in the Bible. The answer to these things is that they’re not explicitly in the Bible, but that they can be deducted from the teachings which are revealed in the Bible, i.e., that there is a communion between those on Earth and those in heaven through baptism and life in Christ. My new concern is - how can we be sure of any evolution of doctrine that is not explicitly condoned by the apostles? If the veneration of saints was not a thing until around the 2nd century, what makes them biblical and Christian?

The bible, which the church compiled, in not the sole source of rule for the Catholic faith. As Paul made reference to keeping both writings and traditions, the bible is just a sample of them.

Before Jesus if Nazareth ascended to heaven, he didn’t write a bible. He picked visible disciples.

If you had to pick either the Christian bible or apostolic succession, you must pick the latter. It produced the bible once, it can do it again.

Again, Jesus did not send a book. He sent men. The book is just one of the many legacies of those men.

 

[ReaderT]

I guess I’ve somehow developed the idea that anything the bible neglects to talk about must be prohibited, even if these ideas don’t necessarily contradict the Bible.

The Bible also doesn’t say what books should be in the Bible - it was put together by the Church. The Church is necessary and there’s no way around it.

 

[Todd_Easton]

My new concern is - how can we be sure of any evolution of doctrine that is not explicitly condoned by the apostles?

Trust in Jesus Christ, who gave as “His gifts” not only “some apostles” in the apostolic age but also “some shepherds and teachers” in that and in every subsequent age to, among other things, maintain sound doctrine “that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:11,14) These “shepherds and teachers” are “the elders” whom “the Holy Spirit has made … bishops to shepherd His Church” (Acts 20:17, 28), “the elders,” who, for example, along with the apostles, met together to consider and decided the question of circumcision (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, and 16:4) and their collective decision was also regarded as the decision of the Holy Spirit. (See Acts 15:28)

 

[Malka]

I recommend…

(a) Why Sola Scriptura is FALSE (Matt Fradd w/ Patrick Madrid)

(b) Up until the late 2nd century, no one acknowledged the canonicity of Hebrews, Acts, James, Jude, Revelation, John (1, 2, 3) and 1 and 2 Peter. Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria believed the Epistle of Barnabas as having been inspired Scripture. Justin Martyr didn’t recognize Philippians or 1 Timothy. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of Carthage believed that the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired. No Church Father got all the books right until Athanasius of Alexandria in A.D 367. That is over 300 years after Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension.

Through the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, the NT canon was officially determined and closed. At the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, which Augustine attended, the deuterocanonical books were listed as Scripture. You can even find them listed in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. They were not separated from the other books. Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form for the OT. They saw no difference between the deuterocanonical books and the other books within the OT. Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzus, Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem, for instance, cited from them as being Scripture. Jerome was the only exception to the rule and he submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Adolf Harnack [Protestant, Scholar, Historian]:
“The New Testament canon . . . is primarily traceable to the Church of Rome. It has now been proved that the whole series of New Testament books in their canonical and universally accepted versions were derived from Rome. Finally, new evidence of the greatest value indicates that from the third century the versions of the West, i.e. the Roman texts of the New Testament, entered into the texts of the Oriental biblical manuscripts. These data clearly prove that the Eastern Churches corrected their own versions by comparison with the New Testament received from Rome in those days. It was with special reference to Rome that an authentic list of Bishops extending back to the Apostles was prepared” [History of Dogma [1899], German edition, vol. 1, p.443, cited in Asmussen, Hans, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 87-88].