Material sufficiency of Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vinny213
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, no council has ever forbade the opinion. Certain decrees of Trent and passages in the Vatican II documents (passing over Vatican I) rejecting the partim-partim view can be interpreted as affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture as doctrine (or alternately affirming that Scripture is part of Tradition, instead of Tradition being the interpretation of Scripture).
 
Vinny213 said:
Did you guys know that Pope Benedict taught the material sufficiency of scripture?
Click to expand...
Where? Everything I’ve read from Ratzinger/Benedict suggests that he’s ambivalent towards material sufficiency, especially in his later writings.
I heard Vatican 2 almost made it dogma.
Click to expand...
That’s highly doubtful since Vatican II did not express any new dogmas.
 
Jimmy Akin said that Jospeh Ratzinger held to it. This is what he wrote:

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter .aspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.
 
Khalid do you know if John Henry Newman held to it? Akin says so but maybe you know a little better. Do you know of any 20th century theologians that hold to it?
 
Khalid do you know if this is accurate?

As for us now agreeing with the RCC on Scripture and Tradition, the work Holy Writ or Holy Church by RC scholar Tavard shows that the truth is more complicated. The strongest opinion at the time of the Reformation within the RCC was that Revelation was only partly in Scripture, the rest in extra-Scriptural tradition, so that not all doctrine needed Scriptural support. But the Council of Trent did not (quite) go this far, and can be interpreted as consistent either with this “partly … partly” view or the classical Anglican (and mainstream patristic) view, which says that all Revelation is in Scripture and that Tradition has an interpretative function, but is not the radical source for dogma. Notably, it is the latter which Newman supported even after his move to Rome and which has now become dominant, it would seem.
 
Vinny213 said:
Jimmy Akin said that Jospeh Ratzinger held to it.
Click to expand...
To Jimmy Akin’s credit, that article was written in 1993. Since that time, Ratzinger had this to say:

What does “the sufficiency of Scripture” actually mean? Even Geiselmann, as a Catholic theologian, cannot get beyond having to hold fast to Catholic dogmas, and none of them can be obtained by means of sola scriptura—not the early Christian dogmas of the former quinquesaecularis consensus, and still less the new ones of 1854 and 1950. What kind of meaning does talk about “the sufficiency of Scripture” still have, then? Does it not threaten to become a dangerous self-deception, with which we deceive ourselves, first of all, and then others (or perhaps do not in fact deceive them!)? In order to go on maintaining that Scripture contains all revealed truth, on one hand, and, on the other, to maintain that the 1950 dogma is a revealed truth, we would have at least to take refuge in a notion of “sufficiency” so broadly conceived that the word “sufficiency” would lose any serious meaning.

See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, God’s Word, Scripture—Tradition—Office, Peter Hünermann and Thomas Söding, eds., Henry Taylor, trans. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), pp. 48-51.

This portion and more is quoted on Protestant blog here.

As I stated previously, I think the best we can deduce from Ratzinger/Benedict is that he’s ambivalent towards the idea of material sufficiency.
 
But is Ratzinger’s view there church dogma? Is his view and opinion the majority view?
 
Vinny213 said:
Khalid do you know if John Henry Newman held to it? Akin says so but maybe you know a little better. Do you know of any 20th century theologians that hold to it?
Click to expand...
I’m not certain. I’ve read four of his works, Idea of a University, On the Development of Doctrine, and Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Arians of the Fourth Century, and Benjamin King’s study of his interactions with the Alexandrian Fathers, and don’t recall him ever speaking for it. However, I’ve not read most of his works, and I didn’t read the ones that I have with an intent to discern his doctrine of Scripture.
 
How does the view of material sufficiency deal with the question of determining the Canon of Scripture itself; which was settled once and for all at Trent?

Also, does one have to hold to material sufficiency?

Edit:

Wait, Jimmy Akin has written:

“For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation.”

Source: archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

Is this all that material sufficiency means?

Also, what is the other acceptable opinion?
 
Vinny213 said:
Did you guys know that Pope Benedict taught the material sufficiency of scripture? I heard Vatican 2 almost made it dogma.
Click to expand...
He should-scripture is materially sufficient-which just means it contains all the truths of the faith necessary for salvation-the Catholic faith IOW. But that in no way guarantees that you or I or Luther or Calvin would interpret scripture the same as each other, or, more importantly, the same as the Church.
 
Would not Scriptures need to include within its own books - an index of all the books to be included?

How can it be sufficient without any outside influence to determine what exactly is Scriptures?

And if there is such an outside influence - would not the influence itself be necessary to determine its sufficiency?

🙂
 
Khalid do you know if George Tavard holds to material suffeciency? Also was that quote about tradition accurate?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Would not Scriptures need to include within its own books - an index of all the books to be included?

How can it be sufficient without any outside influence to determine what exactly is Scriptures?

And if there is such an outside influence - would not the influence itself be necessary to determine its sufficiency?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand what the term “material sufficiency” is getting at. The claim is only that Scripture is sufficient from a material perspective, i.e., it contains sufficient material to support all of Christian doctrine. This does not mean that Scripture is sufficient in general anymore than a pile of organic slime is itself sufficient for a living, breathing human being.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
I don’t think you understand what the term “material sufficiency” is getting at. The claim is only that Scripture is sufficient from a material perspective, i.e., it contains sufficient material to support all of Christian doctrine. This does not mean that Scripture is sufficient in general anymore than a pile of organic slime is itself sufficient for a living, breathing human being.
Click to expand...
What I don’t understand is how can we get to argue about material vs formal without establishing the identity of what is in question first.

Christian doctrines are relative to their interpretations.

To me, it makes no sense to look at the sufficiency of something that is dependent on outside influences in order to establish its very existence.

Is the Criminal Code of the U.S. sufficient to support all of the Criminal Cases?

If I say yes - then I have to ask - How come then so many decisions go to the Appellate Court and so many others go to the Supreme Court? Why are there amendments? Why are there precedents?

I’m not necessarily comparing Scriptures to the code of law. But comparing what is inescapable to the naked eye:

If Scriptures were sufficient in any matter of Christian doctrine, there would only be one Church - not the myriad of Churches with varying interpretations.

I mean, it is not even possible, for me, to comprehend the proposal of such a question.

But that is just me 🤷
 
**MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY **
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate [between Patrick Madrid and James White on sola scriptura] James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.
 
The sufficiency of Scripture is almost completely unrelated to the process by which the canon came to be recognized.
 
Khalid said:
The sufficiency of Scripture is almost completely unrelated to the process by which the canon came to be recognized.
Click to expand...
Again the process is relative to who is executing it.

How about the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Clement I, and all the other books that were considered to be Scriptures?

I think the vessel through which it flows is necessary.

Are we considering the sufficiency of Scriptures without a Church?

It’s like wanting to eat the egg without the chicken laying it. The problem is that the chicken has already laid the egg.

In my humble opinion, we are all completely not qualified on this day and age to make this determination. We have to transport ourselves to those first centuries before the Council of Nicaea. Was it sufficient and self evident for our Church Fathers? What is Scriptures and what isn’t?

For us, it is easy now because we have already benefited from the work of the Church.
 
My understanding is that some Protestants (the more traditional kind) hold to material sufficiency of Scripture but not formal sufficiency. I’m pretty sure there are two kinds of Sola Scriptura, the kind that the more traditional or “magisterial” believe in (material sufficiency) and the kind that the more evangelical Baptist types believe in (formal sufficiency). I think the difference between the material sufficiency these Protestants hold and the kind Catholics are allowed to hold is that while material sufficiency Protestants believe that tradition is important to understand the context and interpretation of Scripture, they don’t believe this tradition is in of itself infallible, whereas Catholics do.
 
Does anyone know if the New Vulgate Bible of 1979 is different then the original clementine vulgate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top