Material sufficiency of Scripture

[QNDNNDQDCE]

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 think you misunderstand what material sufficiency claims. It is not that Scripture is sufficient, but that it can supply all the necessary revelation to work out Christian doctrine. Consider this example, a pile of wood is materially sufficient to construct a table, but it doesn’t mean that someone who is given that pile of wood will use it to build a table or use it to build anything for that matter.

 

[Vinny213]

Does anyone know if the 1979 latin Vulgate differs from earlier translations?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I think you misunderstand what material sufficiency claims. It is not that Scripture is sufficient, but that it can supply all the necessary revelation to work out Christian doctrine. Consider this example, a pile of wood is materially sufficient to construct a table, but it doesn’t mean that someone who is given that pile of wood will use it to build a table or use it to build anything for that matter.

It’s my fault. I can’t separate Church and Scriptures. I just can’t.

 

[Khalid]

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.

That’s pretty accurate. Many of the ones who hold to formal sufficiency do tends towards the fundamentalist end of the line: in order to achieve a coherent doctrine of formal sufficiency, some have even become King James-only, to the exclusion of the Greek and Hebrew, even: this is a last-ditch attempt to salvage formal sufficiency, which, as I said, if it be true, “all who agree on method [and have the same text which to interpret: this is where the more fundamentalist Independent Baptists go KJV-O, to attempt to achieve an absolute uniformity of text], agree on all orthodox doctrines of religion”.

 

[Genesis315]

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.

Interesting. Ratzinger seems to raise the dogma of the Assumption as proof against the material sufficiency of Scripture. On the other hand, the Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, after laying out the various arguments as to why the Assumption is a dogma of the faith, says:

“38. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation.”

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

This would seem to be an argument for “material sufficiency.”

Interesting thread. I’ll have to look at Trent and Vatican II more on this issue. Do the encyclicals on Scripture from Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII deal with this question? Or the post-synodal document from Benedict XVI on Scripture?

 

[Abu]

Genesis315 #45
Quoting Cdl Rtazinger:
“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.”

This would seem to be an argument for “material sufficiency.”

Of course, Scripture is materially sufficient which means that it does contain or imply truths, but is not sufficiently clear on all truths (as post #17 shows clearly), so that it does need the Magisterium to finalise the meaning and the depth of meaning, as in dogmas.

As Romano Guardini explains in *The Faith And Modern Man *(Burns Oates, 1952, p 143):
“Dogma summons reason into the service of the faith and charges it with defining exactly the content of the truth under consideration, and of expressing it clearly. In this way religious truth is protected from the ambiguity of mere experience.”

But as truths are of faith and of morals, it is quite evident that certain moral truths such as the evils of IVF, cloning and many other modern problems need the Magisterium to declare definitively to remove uncertainty and confusion, so evident today.

 

[Vinny213]

But can someone affirm that scripture contains all truths necessary to salvation and remain a catholic in good standing?

 

[Randy_Carson]

But can someone affirm that scripture contains all truths necessary to salvation and remain a catholic in good standing?

Yes.

 

[Gorgias]

Interesting. Ratzinger seems to raise the dogma of the Assumption as proof against the material sufficiency of Scripture.

Hmm. It doesn’t seem that way to me. Since Ratzinger is talking about ‘sufficiency’ (and not explicitly ‘material sufficiency’), it seems that he’s addressing formal sufficiency. In this way, his comments seem to be saying that the Assumption cannot be grounded on the notion of formal sufficiency. Yet, as you show in your citation from Munificentissimus Deus, the Church is making a statement about material sufficiency.

So, we’re still at the point of asserting material but not formal sufficiency…

 

[tdgesq]

Interesting. Ratzinger seems to raise the dogma of the Assumption as proof against the material sufficiency of Scripture. On the other hand, the Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, after laying out the various arguments as to why the Assumption is a dogma of the faith, says:

“38. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation.”

True, but it also states this:

“26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,(20) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.”

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

This would seem to be an argument for “material sufficiency.”

I would say that it doesn’t rule out material sufficiency per se. I guess I’m more struck by Ratzinger’s statement here:

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.

This makes a lot of sense to me. What does “sufficiency of Scripture” of any kind (material or formal) mean if it can’t be understood apart from Tradition? I have no problem with the claim that most revealed truth has some implicit basis in Scripture; but that isn’t what “material sufficiency” is really claiming. The claim is that the Church, rather than the individual, is the only one who can deduce these implicit truths from Scripture. But then the question becomes how does the Church deduce those truths: the answer is through it’s interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.

It seems to me that material sufficiency of Scripture requires that all revealed truth can be known by the Church solely through Scripture; yet that is clearly not how the Church searches for truth. MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is a good example of this. The testimony of the fathers, the saints, and the successors of the apostles always count, and much more when it comes to the Assumption, just looking at how much writing space is dedicated to those views.

Interesting thread. I’ll have to look at Trent and Vatican II more on this issue. Do the encyclicals on Scripture from Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII deal with this question? Or the post-synodal document from Benedict XVI on Scripture?

I can only speak to verbum domini where Pope Benedict states this:

The living Tradition is essential for enabling the Church to grow through time in the understanding of the truth revealed in the Scriptures; indeed, “by means of the same tradition, the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and constantly made effective in the Church”.[58] Ultimately, it is the living Tradition of the Church which makes us adequately understand sacred Scripture as the word of God. Although the word of God precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture, nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) “in an altogether singular way.”

verbum domini

There is no doubt that “material sufficiency” has been an effective apologetical tool, but the question is whether it is correct. And I think the question always comes down to: how is it that Scripture is “sufficient” for the Church? Since Scripture itself does not (always) testify to its own authenticity, it is difficult to deny that Tradition is necessary for the Church to determine revealed truth.

 

[Vinny213]

But what does the church mean by tradition? Is it a separate source of revelation independent from scripture, a two-source theory? I found the following quotation from a priest:

“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.”

Has anyone heard of the two-mode theory in contrast to the two-source one?

 

[Abu]

Vinny213 #51
But what does the church mean by tradition? Is it a separate source of revelation independent from scripture, a two-source theory?

Ecumenical Council Vatican II (1963-5) is quite clear in the Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum):
“9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while Sacred Tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church [Magisterium], in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

This is the fact, the reality. No “theory” is involved.

 

[Vinny213]

So scripture and tradition are not two separate sources?

 

[pablope]

So scripture and tradition are not two separate sources?

No…they came from one source…Scripture is the written part of Tradition, so Scripture is a subset of Tradition.

Further explained below:

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

es. And the first step is to realize that Sacred Tradition is not a separate, secret and parallel revelation. Indeed, it is precisely this view of Tradition which the Church has always condemned as the essence, not of Christianity, but of gnosticism. That is why Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies (c. 180 AD):

For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

So if the Church does not see Sacred Tradition as separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, then how is it understood?

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

 

[Gorgias]

It seems to me that material sufficiency of Scripture requires that all revealed truth can be known by the Church solely through Scripture; yet that is clearly not how the Church searches for truth. MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is a good example of this. The testimony of the fathers, the saints, and the successors of the apostles always count, and much more when it comes to the Assumption, just looking at how much writing space is dedicated to those views.

I think I would respond that it’s formal sufficiency that argues about what ‘can be known’, whereas material sufficiency argues about what ‘is present.’ As you mention, the Church Fathers help make known Mary’s assumption, but the quote you provided from Munificentissimus demonstrates that there are Biblical references which witness to the presence of the Assumption in Scriptural sign and type; these are then made known through apostolic teaching.

 

[tdgesq]

So scripture and tradition are not two separate sources?

I agree with the other posters that Scripture and Tradition are not two separate sources. The ultimate source of all revelation is God, who then transmits that revelation to His Church through the Apostles, their successors and the saints. Much of that revelation (some here say all of it, at least by implication) is written down as Scripture. Some of that revelation is also handed down within the Church, both orally and in writing, which constitutes Sacred Tradition.

I think I would respond that it’s formal sufficiency that argues about what ‘can be known’, whereas material sufficiency argues about what ‘is present.’

I would agree that this is all “material sufficiency” can argue. My issue with it is: how does the word “sufficiency” have any meaning here? Let’s assume that Scripture, at least implicitly, contains all revealed truth. However, this truth cannot be completely known by anybody (including the Church) without other sources, eg. Tradition. To say that Scripture in itself is sufficient is to claim that it is sufficient for something, but for what? Is it sufficient to allow us to know all revealed truth? No. Is it sufficient to let us know everything necessary for salvation? Probably not.

It’s just difficult to see how implicit revelation that we can never know from Scripture alone could be called “sufficient.” And I think this is what Ratzinger is getting at. So claiming that Scripture implicitly contains all revelation doesn’t really make those implications sufficient for anything.

As you mention, the Church Fathers help make known Mary’s assumption, but the quote you provided from Munificentissimus demonstrates that there are Biblical references which witness to the presence of the Assumption in Scriptural sign and type; these are then made known through apostolic teaching.

Sure. I will be the first to admit that there is some (extraordinarily attenuated) Scriptural basis upon which to base the Assumption. It’s just that nobody, not even the Catholic Church, could have divined that truth without the Tradition of the fathers as passed down through the centuries. The way I see it, we are in agreement here. What we are not in agreement about is how Scripture could be “sufficient” in anywise for the revealed truth about the Assumption.

The better arguments against material sufficiency are these: (1) the Church historically doesn’t teach it as dogma, and (2) there are some revealed truths that, in my opinion, cannot be found at all in Scripture. Add to that the argument that I’ve taken from Ratzinger that “sufficiency” becomes a meaningless term without some capability to understand that revelation, it leads me to the conclusion that “material sufficiency” of Scripture is a misleading concept.

 

[LionHeart777]

Could someone point out what the other acceptable opinion(s) are within Catholic teaching?

Thanks!

 

[Khalid]

So scripture and tradition are not two separate sources?

I dispute this oppositely to most members of the forum, taking the position that tradition is the authoritative interpretation of Scripture (the “classical patristic” view as it was called in a quote in a previous post). Every time I post to this effect one or another member immediately corrects me with one or the other of partim-partim or “Scripture is a part of Tradition” which is the accepted Orthodox position. (Usually I’m not explicitly accused of Protestantizing.)

I believe there is one source of divine revelation (God’s Word as presented in God’s word: “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God [alternately, ‘of Christ’]”) , and one Church which can pronounce on the authoritative interpretation of that revelation (as in one of my previous posts, even off of points in the text that would not be accepted by modern historical-critical scholars, but, instead, by the consensus of the “precritical” divine Fathers: Tradition). This is implied by material sufficiency: the material sufficiency of Scripture is a necessary and sufficient grounds for there to be no separate source of revelation, only a source of interpretation (which makes revelation formally sufficient, when the definitive interpretation of the magisterium is pronounced and understood).

I believe all three positions (partim-partim, Tradition>Scripture, Tradition as interpretation of Scripture) are allowed to Catholics: I make no secret of the one I believe to be the most harmonious and consistent.

 

[Khalid]

es. And the first step is to realize that Sacred Tradition is not a separate, secret and parallel revelation. Indeed, it is precisely this view of Tradition which the Church has always condemned as the essence, not of Christianity, but of gnosticism. That is why Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies (c. 180 AD)

Please explain then how John Henry Newman was not a gnostic heretic, since he held the doctrine of the disciplina arcana in the early Church, and spent quite a bit of time attempting to prove that Clement of Alexandria and Origen did as well?

(Think of it as a “question for disputation”, as I don’t actually believe there are two sources of revelation: but John Henry Newman, amongst others, clearly did, as it is the consensus that Clement of Alexandria held Tradition to be a secret, separate source of revelation revealed only to initiates [he actually uses the Greek word “gnostic” to refer to “the true Christian”], and that this is one of the reasons the Stromateis is so incomprehensible and [allegedly purposefully] poorly arranged. Cf. Osborn, Clement of Alexandria “Introduction”. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, passim. King, John Henry Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers, chapter on Arians.)

 

[tdgesq]

I dispute this oppositely to most members of the forum, taking the position that tradition is the authoritative interpretation of Scripture (the “classical patristic” view as it was called in a quote in a previous post). Every time I post to this effect one or another member immediately corrects me with one or the other of partim-partim or “Scripture is a part of Tradition” which is the accepted Orthodox position. (Usually I’m not explicitly accused of Protestantizing.)

I agree that Tradition can be and often is the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, but I do not believe Tradition is always this. The strongest counter-example being the canon of Scripture itself. I also believe that Tradition is not always identical to the teaching function of the Church. That distinction hasn’t been brought up yet, but I think it’s inevitable if this thread goes on for much longer.