Is this an accurate representation

[lanman87]

I’ve been studying the Catholic Church believe and practices for a while now. I’m talking to other protestants about the Catholic Church and one topic of discussion is about why Catholics are so opposed to sola scriptura.

Is this paragraph an accurate representation of Catholic belief? I want to make sure I’m being accurate in my conversations with others?

They believe that the New Testament contains some of what was taught by the Apostles but that, because the teachings were passed on orally and not written down for 20-30 years after Pentecost that some of the teachings were not included in the writings of the New Testament. That is why they put so much emphasis on the early church fathers. They believe the early church fathers understood the oral tradition that wasn’t included in the writings that were, at the time, being passed from church to church. Hence, the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture and Tradition being equally authoritative.

I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question. I couldn’t find one that it really seemed to fit.

 

[Horton]

I’ve been studying the Catholic Church believe and practices for a while now. I’m talking to other protestants about the Catholic Church and one topic of discussion is about why Catholics are so opposed to sola scriptura.

Is this paragraph an accurate representation of Catholic belief? I want to make sure I’m being accurate in my conversations with others?

They believe that the New Testament contains some of what was taught by the Apostles but that, because the teachings were passed on orally and not written down for 20-30 years after Pentecost that some of the teachings were not included in the writings of the New Testament. That is why they put so much emphasis on the early church fathers. They believe the early church fathers understood the oral tradition that wasn’t included in the writings that were, at the time, being passed from church to church. Hence, the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture and Tradition being equally authoritative.

I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question. I couldn’t find one that it really seemed to fit.

It looks to me as though have a good understanding of why we rely on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In John 21:24 John speaks of just this issue.

 

[dshix]

The idea of sola scriptura also doesn’t make sense to us since Christ never actually instituted it. Christ instituted the Church, which physically exists in this world. Christ didn’t tell us to only use scripture to base our beliefs; rather, He told us to follow His Church.

 

[joeybaggz]

I’ve been studying the Catholic Church believe and practices for a while now. I’m talking to other protestants about the Catholic Church and one topic of discussion is about why Catholics are so opposed to sola scriptura.

Is this paragraph an accurate representation of Catholic belief? I want to make sure I’m being accurate in my conversations with others?

They believe that the New Testament contains some of what was taught by the Apostles but that, because the teachings were passed on orally and not written down for 20-30 years after Pentecost that some of the teachings were not included in the writings of the New Testament. That is why they put so much emphasis on the early church fathers. They believe the early church fathers understood the oral tradition that wasn’t included in the writings that were, at the time, being passed from church to church. Hence, the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture and Tradition being equally authoritative.

I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question. I couldn’t find one that it really seemed to fit.

Good and fair question. Remember a couple of factors that we as Catholics take into consideration when the discussion of scripture alone or scripture and tradition arises.

One, the writers of the New Testament very well believed that Jesus was coming back, in their lifetime. Listen to Christ’s words and you can understand their understanding.

Secondly, the Bible as it stands now was not put together in its entirety until about the year four hundred. When a writers say that "they consulted the scriptures, the only thing they could have been consulting was the Old Testament. Of course they could have been reading a letter from Paul, but there was no cohesive New Testament for quite some time.

Third, scripture needs interpretation by an authority, not simply everyone interpreting it on their own. As a simple example, the 48th verse of the second chapter of Luke, needs an authoritative single interpretation.

Lastly, Paul exhorts his listeners to hold onto everything “we have taught you, either by oral teaching or written word.”

I’m no scripture scholar, but relying on the written word of scripture alone, can lead to errors in understanding due to cultural differences, understandings based on the historical time frame in which they were written, and lastly, Jesus didn’t speak Greek,Latin, or Hebrew. He spoke mainly to his disciples and they were simple Galilean fishermen and tradesmen who spoke ancient Aramaic. Because of that language anomaly, the church does rely greatly on the early church fathers who had greater proximity to the times and culture.

My understanding.

Shalom

 

[Dcn_Terry]

There are a plethora of articles at CA to help you understand the Catholic position on this. Just type sola scriptura in the search box on the home page and you will get quite a list. Here are a few to get you started.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/sola-scriptura-is-unscriptural
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-historical-part-i
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-logical-part-i
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-workable-part-i

There are several more.

 

[MaryT777]

The idea of sola scriptura also doesn’t make sense to us since Christ never actually instituted it. Christ instituted the Church, which physically exists in this world. Christ didn’t tell us to only use scripture to base our beliefs; rather, He told us to follow His Church.

Yes
1 Tim 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Acts 28:31 (Scripture needs to be properly interpreted)

Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29
The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
30

• Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
  31
  He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

 

[jimkhong]

I’ve been studying the Catholic Church believe and practices for a while now. I’m talking to other protestants about the Catholic Church and one topic of discussion is about why Catholics are so opposed to sola scriptura.

Is this paragraph an accurate representation of Catholic belief? I want to make sure I’m being accurate in my conversations with others?

They believe that the New Testament contains some of what was taught by the Apostles but that, because the teachings were passed on orally and not written down for 20-30 years after Pentecost that some of the teachings were not included in the writings of the New Testament. That is why they put so much emphasis on the early church fathers. They believe the early church fathers understood the oral tradition that wasn’t included in the writings that were, at the time, being passed from church to church. Hence, the Catholic Doctrine of Scripture and Tradition being equally authoritative.

I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question. I couldn’t find one that it really seemed to fit.

No need to apologise for wanting to know. You are not that far off.

First, it is clear even within the Bible itself that it doesn’t not contain everything: Jn 21:25, the very last verse that concludes all the Gospels.

Now, let’s look at how the books of the Bible got there. Let’s leave out the OT, which has very different story leading to different versions in different Churches. Let’s look at the NT.

Which came first: the Bible or the Church? Very obviously the Church. The first NT book (1 Thes) was written some two decades after Pentecost and the Church has been in existence during those two decades (we consider Pentecost to be the birthday of the Church).

The various books and letters making up the NT (and a few others more) were read in churches for mass and shared among the churches until those currently making up the NT canon because universally accepted for reading at mass. Some of the others eventually fell away from use at mass. A few centuries later, bishops coming together (we call these provincial or church-wide meetings as councils) affirmed the remaining books already accepted and read at mass, as books of the NT. This happened in more than one council stretching over one century.

What then was the criteria for a church to select which book to be read for mass and for the councils of bishops to affirm them? These books were consistent with the doctrines of the Church. Obviously - which Church would allow books contrary to their doctrines to be read for their worship?

What then are the doctrines of the Church that was used to determine appropriateness for use at mass? The teachings of the Apostles, which we call the Traditions of the Church. Used in this context, the word ‘Traditions’ (usually upper case T) does not mean ‘old practice’ but refer rather to the teachings of the Church handed down the centuries.

The role of the Church is to safeguard, transmit and teach the Traditions handed down. The role of teaching the Traditions is exercised through what we call the Office of the Magisterium. The Magisterium has sometimes been incorrectly believed to enforce Catholic teaching. It is really to explain what the Apostles taught, particularly in context of the modern world and that if you believe in something contrary then note that you are believing in something not taught by the Apostles; and if you stray too far out and act on it, we may not be able to call you a Catholic, to be fair to the rest of us.

So, the Catholic position is not that the Bible is incorrect but that the fullness of the teachings of Jesus is contained in the Traditions and the Bible is only the written part of the Traditions that is accepted for use in our worship and as a basis for articulating our doctrines. Hope this is clear.