Prima Scriptura

[Corleone]

Talk about it… I believe a majority of catholic tradition isnt biblical or even rooted within the apostles. So, Sola and Prima Scriptura… Why is it that Catholics dont agree with them… Explain the theological backing… yep

 

[Harmony1988]

Talk about it… I believe a majority of catholic tradition isnt biblical or even rooted within the apostles. So, Sola and Prima Scriptura… Why is it that Catholics dont agree with them… Explain the theological backing… yep

Firstly, this is rather vague. Some traditions are there because they don’t conflict with scripture, so it’s more of a ‘tradition’ thing as the name implies, and since it doesn’t conflict with scripture, there is nothing wrong with it.

As for your ‘majority’ thesis, point out at least 5 traditions that aren’t rooted in the apostles’ time, I’m not implying there isn’t, but I’d like to know what you are referring to before going on.

 

[DCD]

Talk about it… I believe a majority of catholic tradition isnt biblical or even rooted within the apostles. So, Sola and Prima Scriptura… Why is it that Catholics dont agree with them… Explain the theological backing… yep

Just do a search on this site you will have much reading to do and it may be fruitful.

Peace,
DCD

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Talk about it… I believe a majority of catholic tradition isnt biblical or even rooted within the apostles. So, Sola and Prima Scriptura… Why is it that Catholics dont agree with them… Explain the theological backing… yep

First came the apostles and the oral Tradition they passed on to the Church. They taught the Tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then came the letters of the apostles back to the churches they had founded. Then came the gospels which were accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus written by some of the apostles and those who knew them. And the Revelation of John which is an account of a vision he had. For almost 400 years these and other writings were read in the churches.

In the 300’s there was a lot of discussion about which of all these writings could most accurately be traced back to the apostles and best reflected their teachings. Finally, about 395 AD, the church officially decided which writings should be read at mass and could officially be called sacred scripture. These included the Jewish scriptures (old testament) which had been in use at the time of Jesus, as well as the scriptures of the church (new testament). This decision was also guided by the Holy Spirit.

It would be very strange that suddenly the Church would turn away from the Tradition and only rely on the scriptures. It was the Tradition that made it possible to understand what the scriptures meant. The scriptures were read in church and then they were explained, not by somebody’s private idea of what was meant but in the light of what had been taught by the apostles and those who followed them.

I suggest that you read the book Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. It is a very interesting and readable history of the early church just after the time of the apostles. It uses a lot of Christian and pagan historical writings from that time period and would give you an idea of what sacred Tradition is and how it operates.

Protestants have their own Tradition and traditions. They decided to take the bible and interpret it by their own ideas, not by what was passed down and that’s just not biblical! See 1 Timothy 3:15 which calls the Church (not the bible) the pillar and foundation of the faith.

 

[Ignatius]

Talk about it… I believe a majority of catholic tradition isnt biblical

Actually, the Church came first. The New Testament writings came about as part of Sacred Tradition.

 

[cascherman]

Talk about it… I believe a majority of catholic tradition isnt biblical or even rooted within the apostles.

You mean you believe the Catholic traditions that your church chose not to believe are not biblical. So, the Trinity, Christmas, Easter, and inerrancy and existence of the Bible itself are out of this question?

So, Sola and Prima Scriptura… Why is it that Catholics dont agree with them… Explain the theological backing… yep

Sola and Prima cannot be apostolic considering #1 Jesus did not command or even mention his apostles to write down a New Testament. Anytime he used the words scripture he was referring to the OT and #2 The apostles never saw the New Testament (except for with their own eyes).

So, you may argue that majority of our traditions are not biblical but we will argue that your view of the Bible is not apostolic. For that matter Sola and Prima are not intended by Christ either.

 

[cascherman]

The apostles never saw the New Testament (except for with their own eyes).

What I meant with this was:

The apostles never saw the New Testament (except for it being lived out in front of their eyes).

 

[Harmony1988]

Actually, the Church came first. The New Testament writings came about as part of Sacred Tradition.

This is a valid point. We can’t be talking of Catholics being unbiblical, when it was the Church itself that was instituted, and the Bible came to completion in sometime around 380 A.D and it would have taken at least 20 years for the Bible to actually circulate in what few copies could be made at that time.

So a lot of traditions were actually in the making before the Bible came out.

 

[bengal_fan]

prima all the way baby!!

sola doesn’t hold up to history or scripture itself.

prima, however is the spirit in which the NT was put together. the church had lots of controversies throughout its early stages (and still today, but those are for another time). there were many writings circulating around and many people using theme to back heretical claims. the church’s criteria for a book or letter being admitted to the canon was a legitimate apostolic connection (i.e. the “gospel of thomas” did not have a legitimate connection because it was written too far after to really be from thomas). those books were decided upon so as to have a collection of the teaching of the apostles’ (which are the basis of the Christian faith).

so, the church can never go against the apostles’ teachings, the NT is a collection of the apostles’ teachings, the church cannot go against the NT (or OT for that matter as the apostles and Jesus Himself considered it scripture), therefore, the church must consult scripture first. the scripture (according to church teaching which they back up WITH SCRIPTURE) is to be interpreted within the context of the church (and ultimately by the leadership of the church), but all doctrines and practices are subject to scripture first. it all goes back to it and so it all begins with it. it is the written form of the teachings of the apostles.

yes, there were some teachings handed down orally, but the NT was formed so as to be able to show which of those oral teachings that were circulating really came from the apostles.

prima scriptura all the way.

 

[Corleone]

Cascherman:
Your statement is ignorant. You know exactly what I meant and it wasn’t pointed toward the trinity or any other absolute truths of the scripture.

I believe firmly in Prima Scriptura, as should all Christians. It is the idea that the bible is the greatest authority within the Church and is the only infallible source of Christ knowledge. Every belief within our religion should be judged by the truth in scripture. For example, the Spanish inquisition, burning people at the stake for not believing exact doctrine of the church. Protestants at the time (along with Catholic reformers within the church) looked at that, and looked at the bible and read ‘turn the other cheek’ etc. and realized the church, whatever your doctrine on infallibility, was screwed up. I mean even if you believe the Pope is God’s representative on earth, commanding people to slaughter all the Muslims in the crusades just isn’t biblical.

All that our Churches do, must be backed within the scripture and can not contradict any truth within… This is why I disagree with certain Catholic tradition. Eucharist, Mary as Co-redemptrix, the Pope and his authority, ideas from the Council of Trent and a few others. The debate is not based on whether or not scripture is the ultimate authority (because we should all agree that it is) whether or not our traditions are biblical.

 

[bengal_fan]

This is why I disagree with certain Catholic tradition. Eucharist…

i agree with you on prima scriptura, but i am wondering how the view of the eucharist is not biblical?

 

[Corleone]

different hermeneutics and understanding on John 6… And if we are saved by Grace through faith, what is the point?
However, it isnt some thing that we do… Christ made a statement when he said “this is my body given for you, my blood shed for you.” I also see NO where in the bible where transubstantiation happens at all.
yep

 

[theoprofessor]

different hermeneutics and understanding on John 6… And if we are saved by Grace through faith, what is the point?
However, it isnt some thing that we do… Christ made a statement when he said “this is my body given for you, my blood shed for you.” I also see NO where in the bible where transubstantiation happens at all.
yep

May I suggest that you educate yourself first in history, theology, and biblical heurmeneutics, then we can have an intelligent discussion instead of throwing invectives,

 

[jimmy]

Eucharist

Read John6, Matt.26, Luke22, 1Cor.10 and 1Cor.11. The Eucharist is extremely biblical. Many of the other things you mentioned are the same as the Eucharist in this way.

different hermeneutics and understanding on John 6… And if we are saved by Grace through faith, what is the point? However, it isnt some thing that we do… Christ made a statement when he said “this is my body given for you, my blood shed for you.” I also see NO where in the bible where transubstantiation happens at all.
yep

Every scriptural verse has a different understanding to different people. Even the idea of Ephes.2:8-10 has different meaning to different people when they read it. The fact is though that the Eucharist is very scriptural. It is in John6. It is in all of the synoptics at the last supper and it is in Paul’s writings.

Paul specifically calls it the body and blood of Christ and then he says that those who take it unworthily eat and drink unto their own judgement. It sounds like Paula ctually believed that it was the body of Christ. Same with John6. The Jews walked away because it was “a hard teaching”. But Christ did not correct any misconceptions ormodify what he said.

 

[Pete_Holter]

“The Limits of the additional contribution of Tradition. To what extent can there be in the Christian Church a tradition that is a material addition to the word of Scripture? This question has long been debated in the history of theology. The Second Vatican Council appears to have left the matter open, but at least declined to speak of ‘two sources of revelation’, which would be Scripture and Tradition; it affirmed instead that ‘Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture constitute a unique sacred deposit of the Word of God which is entrusted to the Church’ (Dei Verbum 10). It likewise rejected the idea of a tradition completely independent of Scripture. On one point at least, the Council mentions an additional contribution made by Tradition, one of great importance: Tradition ‘enabled the Church to recognize the full canon of the Sacred Books’ (DV 8). Here, the extent to which Scripture and Tradition are inseparable can be seen” (PBC, the Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible).

“Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order ‘to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.’ This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1).

“She has always maintained [the divine Scriptures], and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture” (Dei Verbum, 21).

 

[Corleone]

May I suggest that you educate yourself first in history, theology, and biblical heurmeneutics, then we can have an intelligent discussion instead of throwing invectives,

Wow…that was as statement of love…

I have a degree in theology with a minor in philosophy. I’ve read more books on Catholic History and church history than you can imagine…
But thanks for you concern?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Before I add anything to this thread I just want to point out that I got a good laugh out of Bengal_fan’s post about agreeing with PS but not with the OP’s beliefs about the Eucharist. Thanks Bengal

I believe a majority of catholic tradition isnt biblical or even rooted within the apostles.

A lot of people feel this way, but what does this have to do with Prima Scriptura?

Why is it that Catholics dont agree with them.

I can tell you why this Catholic doesn’t agree with it. Its not historical nor Biblical. Also, for instance with you and Bengal, it is not really the bible which is Prima for you but your interpretation. Take for instance your views on the Eucharist, you are holding your interpretation of Scripture as the authority, not the scriptures themselves.

By the way, Sola Scriptura and all its variants have been discussed over and over again on these boards. I am sure if you did a search you would find a handful of discussions about it already going on.

Also if you have really studied Catholic and Church history as much as you have said, you shouldn’t need to ask why it is rejected by the Church. Unless of course you are fishing.

God bless

 

[Harmony1988]

Cascherman:
Your statement is ignorant. You know exactly what I meant and it wasn’t pointed toward the trinity or any other absolute truths of the scripture.

I believe firmly in Prima Scriptura, as should all Christians.** It is the idea that the bible is the greatest authority within the Church and is the only infallible source of Christ knowledge.** Every belief within our religion should be judged by the truth in scripture. For example, the Spanish inquisition, burning people at the stake for not believing exact doctrine of the church. Protestants at the time (along with Catholic reformers within the church) looked at that, and looked at the bible and read ‘turn the other cheek’ etc. and realized the church, whatever your doctrine on infallibility, was screwed up. I mean even if you believe the Pope is God’s representative on earth, commanding people to slaughter all the Muslims in the crusades just isn’t biblical.

All that our Churches do, must be backed within the scripture and can not contradict any truth within… This is why I disagree with certain Catholic tradition. Eucharist, Mary as Co-redemptrix, the Pope and his authority, ideas from the Council of Trent and a few others. The debate is not based on whether or not scripture is the ultimate authority (because we should all agree that it is) whether or not our traditions are biblical.

That would indicate whoever compiled the Bible is infallible, not due to themselves alone, but due to authority from the Holy Spirit.

Which indicates if they are infallible in reviewing and authorizing scripture as authentic, they can/maybe infallible in specific cases (dogma)

The Pope never ordered to ‘slaughter all the muslims’ looks like you have a pretty faint idea of anything you are saying. The intention of the crusades were to recover land from muslims who by force took land that didn’t belong to them. What the soldiers did was not necessarily the command of the Pope.

And to further prove your point wrong, by the Bible itself:

1 Timothy 3:15 - "in case I’m delayed. I want you to know how people who are members of God’s family must live. God’s family is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.’

You are propagating the fact that the Bible is the greatest source, so that must mean it is the very foundation of the truth. However this is unbiblical as shown above. Also…it’s illogical, because the Bible didn’t fall from the sky, it was compiled by men who by the power of the Holy Spirit determined it’s authenticity, who were the early church fathers. Which indicates by logic alone, and scripture firmly supports it, that it’s the Church and not the Bible.

So you may have to rethink this theory, in regards to what you have just said.

 

[Harmony1988]

Wow…that was as statement of love…

I have a degree in theology with a minor in philosophy. I’ve read more books on Catholic History and church history than you can imagine…
But thanks for you concern?

Yet you couldn’t see the connection between ‘infallible knowledge’ in the bible and whoever compiled it? i.e. bishops ?

Seriously…you just by your own post proved yourself wrong, or highly questionable at that matter.

I’m rather skeptical on your ‘history’ with statements like ‘the pope ordered to slaughter all the muslims’. I infact believe you have as much of a degree in theology or philosophy as the average joe on the internet.

Your statements are philosophical, theological, historical or logical for that matter as can be seen by the conclusions that you draw, or fail to draw.

 

[bengal_fan]

different hermeneutics and understanding on John 6… And if we are saved by Grace through faith, what is the point?
However, it isnt some thing that we do… Christ made a statement when he said “this is my body given for you, my blood shed for you.” I also see NO where in the bible where transubstantiation happens at all.
yep

but that is based on your interpretation (as you state). i was questioning your statement that prima scriptura excludes transubstantiation. it doesn’t because there are many who interpret John 6 as well as the Corinthians passage differently than you and can use prima scriptura as a support for transubstantiation.

my only critique was that your argument that prima scriptura would negate the catholic view of communion is wrong. plus, prima scriptura simply means scripture as the first rule of faith, not the sole (sola) rule of faith. it assumes other standards of faith, but that they are subject to scripture. tradition, church councils, and interpretation within community would be other standard makers, but all are subject to scripture first. as those have interpreted John 6 differently from you, the idea of transubstantiation can be thought of as biblical. just because you have a different interpretation doesn’t make yours unbiblical just as it doesn’t make the catholic view unbiblical either.