Jesus did not write one letter of Scripture

[Steadfast]

As a former Catholic and a candidate for the priesthood I am very familiar with Catholic doctrine.

All I am saying here is that you don’t understand Sola Scriptura, and that it is possible to have doubts about it or even oppose it without reducing it to a caricature.

 

[Steadfast]

But just for fun, maybe you could give us an example of a tradition established by Jesus which was not subsequently written down and included in the Bible?

Because, it seems to me that you would have to be able to show this in order for the substance of your argument against Sola Scriptura to make sense.

 

[De_Maria]

If it were not for the unique Word of God, clearly outlining Jesus as the fulfillment of all Hebrew messianic prophecy and describing Him as the only begotten Son of God, we would know nothing about Him.

Not true. We would have His Liturgy. His Tradition.

You see, it is Jesus who established Liturgical rituals, Covenants if you will, which release the graces of His Word, because they are His Word.

We would know some historical facts and we would hear stories about Him identifying Him as the personification of a platonic abstract, but we would not know Jesus and, above all, we would know nothing of what His sacrifice means or what He really means to History.

You wouldn’t. But we would. Because we have the authentic witness of the Church which He established to carry on His message throughout the centuries.

And it is precisely His sacrifice which He memorialized in the epitome of all Tradition, the Liturgy by which we proclaim His death until He comes, by which with one mouth and mind we praise Him.

All the eventual disconnects between the Scriptural record and the revisions of men would have been expedited and very likely expanded such that we cannot even say for certain what we would believe today.

We know exactly what we would believe today, because for 300 years, we did not have a Bible, but the Tradition of Jesus Christ remained strong in His Church.

Also the outcome of the contest between the nascent church and the Gnostics would have been very much in doubt since the church would have nothing but hearsay to depend upon for argument, much of it made by men informed by men informed with Greek philosophical ideals they were unable to shake even WITH the bible at hand.

That simply shows your lack of faith in Jesus promises. Because it is He who promised that the Church would not fall.

Unless you are saying that the testimony of this “early church” is identical with the Word of God with all the authority, sanction and superintendency pertaining to it.

Yes, I am. The Early Church it is which wrote down the New Testament which is itself an example of living Tradition.

But if you say that you are departing from the Catholic dual stream theory of revelation, effectively subsuming the Bible in the Oral Tradition.

Not so. We believe that Tradition is the Word of God. So is Scripture. We have both today. But from Tradition we can reproduce Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

But the Bible describes soteriology in a decidedly legal sense:

God is a judge whose condemnation must be mitigated and whose justice must be satisfied.

It also describes God as a loving Father whose favor is enjoyed by His chosen.

In the case of the former, Christ has accomplished the satisfaction of God’s justice and the propitiation of His wrath and, as The Elect, is the One in Whom we, as co-heirs, enjoy mercy, grace and peace.

It’s not accurate to dismiss the juridical approach because it is uncongenial to us today. It happens to be an imminently biblical way of describing God’s dealing with humanity, and not just beginning with Paul.

Protestantism has, historically, taken account of both of these models.

Catholicism has not really, not lately anyway even though this balanced approach is very much a part of it’s legacy.

Indeed, the Reformers wouldn’t even have Augustine if the Catholic Church had not given him to them.

You still sound conflicted even within your own message. Keep studying the Catholic Church from Catholic sources. The Reformers would not have the Scriptures if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church.

 

[Steadfast]

Not so. We believe that Tradition is the Word of God. So is Scripture. We have both today. But from Tradition we can reproduce Scripture.

Here you have departed from authentic Catholic teaching. Welcome to Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[De_Maria]

But just for fun, maybe you could give us an example of a tradition established by Jesus which was not subsequently written down and included in the Bible?

Because, it seems to me that you would have to be able to show this in order for the substance of your argument against Sola Scriptura to make sense.

You would be wrong. Every Tradition established by Jesus Christ is either straightforward or implied in the Bible.

That is why Tradition and Scripture are ONE WORD OF GOD.

 

[Steadfast]

You would be wrong. Every Tradition established by Jesus Christ is either straightforward or implied in the Bible.

That is why Tradition and Scripture are ONE WORD OF GOD.

If they are straightforward or implied in the bible then you believe in Sola Scriptura, because this is what Sola Scriptura means.

 

[De_Maria]

Jesus wrote the divine nature on the human person. Jesus is the Word of God who is God made man. We don’t need something to replace Him.

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing.

The Scripture is called the Word of God.
Tradition is called the Word of God.
The Church is called the Body of Christ.

Which are you saying would replace Jesus?

 

[Steadfast]

So you’re either Protestant or Eastern Orthodox but judging by your doctrine of revelation and authority, you aren’t Catholic.

 

[Steadfast]

On the one hand you say the Tradition subsumes the Scripture (Eastern Orthodox) and on the other you say that every authentic doctrine is either to be found straightforwardly expressed in Scripture or can be inferred therefrom (Protestant).

Which is it, De Maria?

 

[De_Maria]

Here you have departed from authentic Catholic teaching. Welcome to Eastern Orthodoxy.

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Besides, you can’t welcome me to Eastern Orthodoxy because I know that they don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, but you do.

So, you’re having doubts about Sola and you’re interested in Eastern Orthodoxy. You would do well to enter into communion with them. The Church breathes with two lungs, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

However, I extend an invitiation to the Catholic Church. Lutherans are prodigal children of the Roman rite, not the Eastern.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

As a former Catholic and a candidate for the priesthood I am very familiar with Catholic doctrine.

All I am saying here is that you don’t understand Sola Scriptura, and that it is possible to have doubts about it or even oppose it without reducing it to a caricature.

You reduced it to a worse caricature than anyone here. You said:

You are right, Jesus didn’t write any of the Bible, but were it not for the Bible, we would know nothing about Him.

Thus Sola Scriptura.

Even anti-Catholics admit that the Church wrote the Scriptures and thus, if it weren’t for the Church, you wouldn’t know anything about Jesus Christ.

 

[De_Maria]

If they are straightforward or implied in the bible then you believe in Sola Scriptura, because this is what Sola Scriptura means.

No it isn’t. Please provide the definition of Sola which says this.

 

[Steadfast]

De Maria,

I don’t know why I am telling you this but tomorrow morning I will be going to Confession and will be returning to the Catholic Church.

And when I do, I will be more Catholic than you because I will not be confused about who or what has God’s teaching authority.

I will know that Scripture and the Tradition are two streams of the same revelation and that however much Protestants are in error, I will not need to misrepresent them or demonize their beliefs because I will respect them and not assume that they are either stupid or lazy.

 

[De_Maria]

So you’re either Protestant or Eastern Orthodox but judging by your doctrine of revelation and authority, you aren’t Catholic.

I’m definitely Catholic. But you are simply fishing since you don’t seem to know what Sola means, what the Catholic Church teaches nor what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

 

[De_Maria]

On the one hand you say the Tradition subsumes the Scripture (Eastern Orthodox)

You’ll have to explain “subsumes:”. What I said is that we can reproduce the Scriptures from Tradition. And we can. Scripture was written from Tradition in the first place.

and on the other you say that every authentic doctrine is either to be found straightforwardly expressed in Scripture or can be inferred therefrom (Protestant).

Not so. The Protestant doctrine insists on straight forward doctrine in Scripture. Otherwise, you have a non Biblical authority deriving the doctrine from Scripture and thus showing authority over Scripture. According to how they interpret it.

Which is it, De Maria?

It is Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria,

I don’t know why I am telling you this but tomorrow morning I will be going to Confession and will be returning to the Catholic Church.

Thanks be to God.

And when I do, I will be more Catholic than you because I will not be confused about who or what has God’s teaching authority.

May God lead you to the heights of sanctity.

I will know that Scripture and the Tradition are two streams of the same revelation and that however much Protestants are in error, I will not need to misrepresent them or demonize their beliefs because I will respect them and not assume that they are either stupid or lazy.

That is wonderful!!!

Welcome back to the Church!

 

[Eucharisted]

Jesus did not write one iota of a letter of Scriptures because he’s a Jew, and Jew observe the Law, not write it.

 

[PJM]

Jesus established Tradition. Established a Church. Commanded the Church to teach His Tradition.

Jesus did not write Scripture. But did pass on the Old Testament as part of the Tradition which He established.

So where does Sola Scriptura come in?

It is a figment of wish-to-be better, know more, and choose for myself, theology.:tsktsk:

No where in the bible does this claim find support. However, the very opposie is in the bible.St. John Chapter 21:" 24 "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. "

 

[De_Maria]

It is a figment of wish-to-be better, know more, and choose for myself, theology.:tsktsk:

No where in the bible does this claim find support. However, the very opposie is in the bible.St. John Chapter 21:" 24 "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. "

Sooo? You’re saying that Jesus wrote Scripture? Show me.