Magisterium vs. sola scripture

[Roger12345]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that it has a body of doctrine that is in addition to scripture. It seems to me that the debate over praying to saints, the nature of the sacraments, the authority of the church, ETC. really boils down to whether or not this body of tradition that is in addition to the bible is legitimate or not. Can anyone recommend some books on this subject? Specifically how the church can claim to have a body of authoritative tradition in addition to the bible and what is the basis for that authority?

Thanks for your time

 

[TimothyH]

Hi Roger

I can’t offer a book recommendation but what I can give is the following.

Tradition is not in addition to the Bible but is part of a unfied whole.

Sacred Tradtion + Sacred Scripture + Magesterium

These form a unified whole. None adds to the other but they compliment each other and never, ever contradict each other.

Both Sacred Traditon and Sacred Scripture are revealed truth - truth revealed to us by God. The Magesterium - teaching office of the Church - guards against error. The Authority of the Church to teach was granted by Christ - God himself.

He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

The first place to look for the presence of Sacred Tradition is the nature of the Bible itself. The first words of the New Testament were not written until ten years after the birth of the Church at Pentacost. Teaching was from the Old Testament only and 100% oral beyond that. The entire new testament was not completed for at least 60 years. The Church functioned at least that long without the whole Bible as we know it today.

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. (John 21:25)

The Bible itself tells us that not everything Jesus did was written down.

-Tim-

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Hi Roger,

I recommend the following:

– Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly Sect. 1, Ch. 2, Art. 2.

– The Catholic Encyclopedia article Tradition and Living Magisterium.

– “By What Authority?” by Mark Shea (paperback). You can get a sort of preview of his thought on his website, in particular this article on Sacred Tradition.

 

[pablope]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that it has a body of doctrine that is in addition to scripture. It seems to me that the debate over praying to saints, the nature of the sacraments, the authority of the church, ETC. really boils down to whether or not this body of tradition that is in addition to the bible is legitimate or not. Can anyone recommend some books on this subject? Specifically how the church can claim to have a body of authoritative tradition in addition to the bible and what is the basis for that authority?

Thanks for your time

I would suggest starting with this article to get your feet wet first…

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

And this is the book written by the same author: amazon.com/Authority-Evangelical-Discovers-Catholic-Tradition/dp/0879738510

 

[po18guy]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that it has a body of doctrine that is in addition to scripture. It seems to me that the debate over praying to saints, the nature of the sacraments, the authority of the church, ETC. really boils down to whether or not this body of tradition that is in addition to the bible is legitimate or not. Can anyone recommend some books on this subject? Specifically how the church can claim to have a body of authoritative tradition in addition to the bible and what is the basis for that authority?

Thanks for your time

Your viewpoint seems to be on the side of bible alone. But, the bible took hundreds of years to finalize. Now what? Christianity did not fail or disappear during those centuries.

I heartily suggest that you read By What Authority? by evangelical convert Mark P. Shea. He also began with your viewpoint, but explains how that all began to change as he investigated the early Church.

Think of this: There has been unity in Catholic doctrine around the world, for 2,000 years. There is almost complete disunity among those claiming that the bible is their authority. Both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons were formed using the exact same King James Version. Is that authority?

Jesus said that we will know them by their fruits. Unity versus division.

 

[thistle]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that it has a body of doctrine that is in addition to scripture. It seems to me that the debate over praying to saints, the nature of the sacraments, the authority of the church, ETC. really boils down to whether or not this body of tradition that is in addition to the bible is legitimate or not. Can anyone recommend some books on this subject? Specifically how the church can claim to have a body of authoritative tradition in addition to the bible and what is the basis for that authority?

Thanks for your time

I recommend the book Theology For Beginners by Frank J. Sheed. He explains things in an easy to read and understand way.

 

[Roger12345]

Thanks for the responses. I put the two books on my reading list. I also put the Catholic Catechism on my reading list, but it’ll probably take me awhile to read through it. I read through the encyclopedia and Catechism posting.
The church magisterium (Sacred tradition + scripture) is infallible. How can you be Sure the tradition is without error? Two thoughts come to mind: First the argument is circular; essentially an appeal to authority - The sacred tradition is without error because it is without error. In the book of acts the Jewish Christians told some proselytes that they had to be circumcised to be saved. At the time (prior to the council) it would have been thought of as oral tradition.
Second when Jesus established the Church did he say anything specifically to the effect that the oral teaching of the church was guaranteed to be without error?
Does the church teach that it’s social and political doctrines, such as gun control and immigration reform, are without error? I’m not sure I can agree with the Church’s gubn control position.

 

[po18guy]

First the argument is circular; essentially an appeal to authority - The sacred tradition is without error because it is without error.

Rather, it is linear. Jesus bestowed the Holy spirit upon the Apostles: “He will lead you into all truth” right? (John 16:13) It starts with Jesus’ promise, proceeds to the Pentecost (Acts 2) , and is then practiced and taught within the nascent Church, then handed on to each succeeding generation. Remember that the Church generations overlapped and all traditions were subject to scrutiny as to accuracy - and this is disregarding the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In the book of acts the Jewish Christians told some proselytes that they had to be circumcised to be saved. At the time (prior to the council) it would have been thought of as oral tradition.

No! This is simply the error of the Judaizers (who were neither Apostles nor Church council, right?). In the same Book (Acts 10), Peter made no such demand upon the house of Cornelius, or of any other Gentile converts. Peter was an Apostle - the Judaizers were not.

Second when Jesus established the Church did he say anything specifically to the effect that the oral teaching of the church was guaranteed to be without error?

Yes! “When the Spirit of truth comes, He will lead you into all truth” (John 16:13) That is a God-given guarantee. What did Jesus say about the New Testament, or about its inspiration, or about its accuracy or about its “authority”? Zero. Zip. Nada.

All scripture is subjec to gross distortion and twisting (2 Peter 3:16), whereas the Oral Apostolic Tradition is NOT. Who was the first to twist the scriptures? The evil one (Luke 4:9-11). Jesus rebuked that lie and gave that same power to His Church.

Are you forgetting that the bible is also a tradition that has been handed on? Of course it is. It was written 20-70 years after the fact, by authors - many of whom witnessed none of it. Since there is not a single original of any scripture in existance, no signed manuscript, and since all extant manuscripts are copies of copies of copies of copies, how can we trust any of it?

No original exists. None.

After testing the scriptures, the Church has infallibly declared that the bible is the inspired word of God - all 73 books. There is no other way in which we can possibly know this.

“Bible alone” is not only a fairly new innovation, it is absolutely man-made, and is an unsupportable, circular argument. The bible makes no claim of infallibility, nor does it explain where the “Inspired Table of Contents” came from - the Church had to determine that. Saying “The bible is the ultimate authority because it is the bible” is nonsensical, since no two men on earth agree on what the bible means. It is essentially meaningless without an authentic, Holy Spirit guided, authoritative interpreter.

That interpreter would be the Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail (Matthew 16:18).

Does the church teach that it’s social and political doctrines, such as gun control and immigration reform, are without error? I’m not sure I can agree with the Church’s gubn control position.

Read it again. It is about international arms dealing which fuels bloody rebellions for the sake of profit - completely different. Read Catechism sections 2263-2265. They authorizes deadly force in defense of innocent human life.

 

[Roger12345]

Thanks for the response.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for the response.

Just take your time, read the catechism and ponder the points made. Scripture is absolutely essemtial and is irreplaceable - but it is only part of revelation. If you seek the “full Gospel”, you must rely on the authority of the Church to protect and transmit the Apostolic Traditions - both written and oral (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

The Judaizers held to a type of Pharisaic tradition - a tradition of men. They wanted to hold to both the Old and New covenants, remaining slaves to the law - that is not Christ’s Gospel. The Apostolic Tradition is what Christ and the Holy Spirit have revealed and which has been handed on to us.

The prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4) testifies to the integrity of the oral Apostolic Tradition. In it, we see that Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada - from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote the Gospel to confirm the oral Apostolic Tradition that Theophilus had already received.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The true opposite of sola Scriptura is The Church. Sola Scriptura subscribes to an invisible symbolic sort of church. In truth (and Biblically) The Church is a visible institution founded by Jesus Christ with a heirarchy and faithful. It’s documented in the Bible.

The Church’s Magisterium is just one (small) part of the Church. Sacred Scripture is another, Sacred Tradition is another, all of the baptized faithful are another.

Sola Scriptura dispenses with a visible institution (Magisterium and faithful) and Tradition, in favor of private judgement. That is why Protestantism has been characterized by untold thousands of new denominations (and non-denominations) ever since the Reformation.

The ironic thing about sola Scriptura is that tradition has not really been dispensed with, it has just been replaced with a new man-made tradition of how to interpret the Bible. However, that tradition has been multiplied untold thousands of times by various “founders” and interpreters of Protestantism.

Only The Church has a Divine Founder and Head.

 

[JonNC]

The true opposite of sola Scriptura is The Church. Sola Scriptura subscribes to an invisible symbolic sort of church. In truth (and Biblically) The Church is a visible institution founded by Jesus Christ with a heirarchy and faithful. It’s documented in the Bible.

The Church’s Magisterium is just one (small) part of the Church. Sacred Scripture is another, Sacred Tradition is another, all of the baptized faithful are another.

Sola Scriptura dispenses with a visible institution (Magisterium and faithful) and Tradition, in favor of private judgement. That is why Protestantism has been characterized by untold thousands of new denominations (and non-denominations) ever since the Reformation.

The ironic thing about sola Scriptura is that tradition has not really been dispensed with, it has just been replaced with a new man-made tradition of how to interpret the Bible. However, that tradition has been multiplied untold thousands of times by various “founders” and interpreters of Protestantism.

Only The Church has a Divine Founder and Head.

While outside the intentions of the thread, the bolded, at least from a Lutheran perspective, is a caricature of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not private judgement.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

While outside the intentions of the thread, the bolded, at least from a Lutheran perspective, is a caricature of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not private judgement.

Jon

That is often the defense of Sola scriptura; that it is NOT private judgement. This flies in the face of untold thousands of Protestant denominations claiming sola scriptura. They once were very proud of private judgement, but today’s debacle of denominations has made it uncool to admit what it really is: private judgement.

Now Lutherans may object that they follow their denomination’s judgement of Scripture interpretation. However, it is based on the private judgement of their founder Martin Luther. Just as the countless other denominations follow the private judgement of their own founder (or just themselves.) After all, Protestants first have to decide if the interpretation of a given denomination meets with their own interpretation (private judgement.) For example, if a Lutheran decides that his pastor has erred in interpreting Scripture, they will find another denomination that does mesh with their own private judgement. Indeed, it is incumbent on a Protestant believer to locate a denomination that parallels his own private judgement interpretation of the Scriptures.

Now of course if anyone has some sort of sound argumentation to PROVE that sola scriptura is NOT private judgement, I would be interested to hear it. Otherwise, claiming that sola Scriptura is NOT private judgement is just stout denial of a self evident truth.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

While outside the intentions of the thread, the bolded, at least from a Lutheran perspective, is a caricature of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not private judgement.

Jon

Hi Jon,

For one in the CC and EOC I would argue it is private interpretation for these reasons.

(1) In the CC (East and West) and OEC one has always encountered God’s word authoritatively in the unity of Scripture and Tradition in the Church (STC). STC is the means by which God’s word is handed on down through history.

(2) Scripture was written by believers for believers–both of these in the tradition and w/i the church. Tradition and Church (always conscious of its continuity with the apostolic community at Pentecost) have always been the native hermeneutic environment for the NT texts.

(3) A text is actualized only in reading and until scripture is read and interpreted it is functionally speaking just ink stains on a page. Therefore, to say Scripture is the final authority is necessarily to say my interpretation of Scripture alone here and now is the final authority. Consequently it is this that we have to check for in the fathers and councils to see if sola scriptura is attested to their writings, decrees, etc.

(4) What the Reformers did precisely is to elevate their interpretation of Scripture alone over against STC to judge what STC has handed on and even STC itself. This is indisputable.

And given that that interpretation is their individual interpretation rather than including Scripture in unity with the Church’s and Tradition’s public witness, it is private interpretation of Scripture alone.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;11131870]That is often the defense of Sola scriptura; that it is NOT private judgement. This flies in the face of untold thousands of Protestant denominations claiming sola scriptura. They once were very proud of private judgement, but today’s debacle of denominations has made it uncool to admit what it really is: private judgement.

Well, I’m not speaking of protestants, but Lutheranism.

Now Lutherans may object that they follow their denomination’s judgement of Scripture interpretation. However, it is based on the private judgement of their founder Martin Luther.

Not true. While Luther has a significant role in our understanding, Lutherans worth their salt will tell you that, as the Augsburg Confession states: *"…in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches." *

Just as the countless other denominations follow the private judgement of their own founder (or just themselves.) After all, Protestants first have to decide if the interpretation of a given denomination meets with their own interpretation (private judgement.)

And every Catholic does the same. Certainly, there are Catholics who have left Catholicism for Orthodoxy, or Lutheranism because they determined that they could no longer remain Catholic on doctrinal grounds.

For example, if a Lutheran decides that his pastor has erred in interpreting Scripture, they will find another denomination that does mesh with their own private judgement.

Not if they are well catechized. If my pastor, in my opinion, has erred which, in Lutheranism, is teaching contrary to scripture and the confessions, I will take it to him, followed by the elders, and ultimately to the synod. My pastor has no more authority to privately interpret set doctrine than your priest does. The Church, in the form of the Synod, has the role of hermeneutics, not me or my pastor.

Indeed, it is incumbent on a Protestant believer to locate a denomination that parallels his own private judgement interpretation of the Scriptures.

As do Catholics, Orthodox, etc.

Now of course if anyone has some sort of sound argumentation to PROVE that sola scriptura is NOT private judgement, I would be interested to hear it. Otherwise, claiming that sola Scriptura is NOT private judgement is just stout denial of a self evident truth.

Sure. Read the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, summary, rule and norm.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, holding teachers, doctrines, etc. accountable to scripture. No mention of private interpretation.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Following up, other writings, such as the 7 general councils of the Church, and the Creeds are the standards of doctrines, along with the Lutheran confessions, not because they are equal with scripture, but because they rightly reflect scripture. Again, no mention of private interpretation.

If I am to be a Lutheran, I am bound to confess and believe the doctrines of Church Catholic, as described in those documents I’ve mentioned.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Thank you JonNC for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I wanted to comment on this:

And every Catholic does the same. Certainly, there are Catholics who have left Catholicism for Orthodoxy, or Lutheranism because they determined that they could no longer remain Catholic on doctrinal grounds.

I think if anyone did a study (which would be of great interest to me) on WHY people left the Catholic Church, I imagine it would be almost entirely composed of Catholics who were disillusioned in some way by people, be they priests, fellow parishioners or what have you. A small minority would be composed of people that simply reject Church teaching on things like Divorce, Birth control, or other similar teachings.

IOW, a Catholic rarely IF EVER, leaves the Catholic Church because of Scripture differences or Church Doctrine.

A Catholic does not look upon the Church as the Scriptural interpreter of choice, but rather a religious institution with history, tradition and rules (at the very least).

I will grant that lax, uncatechized, or fallen away Catholics may join a Protestant church, and then rejoice in the fellowship and enthusiasm -which may have seemed lacking- in the Catholic Church. And with time adopt the Protestant principles of sola Scriptura, and then LOOKING BACK on their old church, claim it was not Scriptural. But Catholics don’t first decide that the Church is non-Scriptural or interpreting Scripture erroneously and then leave for Protestantism.

You may find an exception to prove the rule. But it is just my own experience -and sadly I know more ex-Catholics than fellow Catholics! Meaning most of my family and friends.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

Well, I’m not speaking of protestants, but Lutheranism.

Most of the mainline Protestant churches are very solicitous that they be distinguished from the unwashed masses of common Protestants.

But from the vantage point of The Church, Lutheranism is Protestantism. In fact it is the very epicenter of Protestantism.

There is really no need for me to comment on the remainder of your detailed post, as it also relies heavily on semantics to distance itself from ordinary private judgement Protestantism.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you JonNC for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I wanted to comment on this:

I think if anyone did a study (which would be of great interest to me) on WHY people left the Catholic Church, I imagine it would be almost entirely composed of Catholics who were disillusioned in some way by people, be they priests, fellow parishioners or what have you. A small minority would be composed of people that simply reject Church teaching on things like Divorce, Birth control, or other similar teachings.

IOW, a Catholic rarely IF EVER, leaves the Catholic Church because of Scripture differences or Church Doctrine.

A Catholic does not look upon the Church as the Scriptural interpreter of choice, but rather a religious institution with history, tradition and rules (at the very least).

I will grant that lax, uncatechized, or fallen away Catholics may join a Protestant church, and then rejoice in the fellowship and enthusiasm -which may have seemed lacking- in the Catholic Church. And with time adopt the Protestant principles of sola Scriptura, and then LOOKING BACK on their old church, claim it was not Scriptural. But Catholics don’t first decide that the Church is non-Scriptural or interpreting Scripture erroneously and then leave for Protestantism.

You may find an exception to prove the rule. But it is just my own experience -and sadly I know more ex-Catholics than fellow Catholics! Meaning most of my family and friends.

I would enjoy a study of that type, as well. I think the biggest issue regarding ex-Lutherans is catechesis. I’ve often thought, “how can a Lutheran leave the Lutheran Church for a Baptist, Calvinist/Reformed, Pentecostal, non-denom, IOW protestant communion, if they truly understood the sacraments, let alone other doctrines. How can one abandon the real presence for a symbolic presence, etc.? How can one allow oneself to be re-baptized ?”

All that said, Lutheranism is sometimes the landing point for Catholics that leave the CC (not that we proselytize them because Lutheranism traditionally does not), and my experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that doctrine often, though not always, comes into play. Your experience seems to differ, which is understandable.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

While outside the intentions of the thread, the bolded, at least from a Lutheran perspective, is a caricature of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not private judgement.

Jon

But, neither is there a universal Lutheran body with interpretive authority over all of Lutheranism. By man claiming that the bible is the sole rule for faith, it rejects the Acts 15 Church and places individual egos in charge of interpreting God’s truth. It is clear from human history that the ego is the opponenet of truth.

 

[JonNC]

But, neither is there a universal Lutheran body with interpretive authority over all of Lutheranism. By man claiming that the bible is the sole rule for faith, it rejects the Acts 15 Church and places individual egos in charge of interpreting God’s truth. It is clear from human history that the ego is the opponenet of truth.

I would disagree. Sola scriptura does not exclude the authority of the Church to teach and set doctrine. In fact, it supports that role. The Church is the pillar of truth precisely because serves scripture.

Jon