P
PhilVaz
Guest
hoosier << Anyways, to be on topic, do you guys realize that the Traditions that were passed down were what became SCRIPTURE? The traditions that Paul refers to in Timothy were the Old Testament Scriptures were they not? >>
Perhaps, that would be the “material sufficiency” position. Actually it is the “Scriptures” that Paul refers to in Timothy that were the OT Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16). The Scripture itself does not limit tradition to the Bible nor imply anywhere that Scripture will “become” (sometime in the future) the “sole infallible rule of faith.” St. Paul commands tradition to be passed on (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2, 34; also 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). And that tradition was authoritative, infallible, inspired, the Word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:25; 1 Cor 2:4,7,13; etc).
Even if “material sufficiency” is granted (that all extant tradition and revelation in possession of the Church is confined to Scripture alone), there is still the question of the correct and true interpretation of the Scripture. Who has the authority to interpret Scripture correctly? As I’ve quoted repeatedly, the Reformed writer Mathison admits the visible Church is the true interpreter of Scripture, that we must listen to her since she has the final authority. On that Catholics and Orthodox agree. But you’ll have to come at least as far as Mathison before we discuss which Church that is.
Now according to many of the Fathers, there were traditions not recorded in Scripture. St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom are especially clear:
“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form ‘with the Spirit’ has NO written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is UNWRITTEN, then this must not be received. But if the GREAT NUMBER of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution WITHOUT written authority, then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. FOR I HOLD IT APOSTOLIC TO ABIDE BY THE UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. ‘I praise you,’ it is said, ‘that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you’ [1 Cor 11:2]; and ‘Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle’ [2 Thess 2:15]…One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their SUCCESSORS, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If as in a court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our aquittal? I think so; for ‘at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established’ [Matt 18:16; Deut 19:15]. And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge you with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with hoary antiquity” (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 71)
“‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by an epistle of ours’ [2 Thess 2:15]. Hence it is MANIFEST, that they did NOT deliver all things by Epistle, but MANY THINGS UNWRITTEN, and IN LIKE MANNER BOTH the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians 4,2)
“We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themsleves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are MANY THINGS which have been delivered by UNWRITTEN TRADITION. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they chiefly dwell is that pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoke little concerning His Godhead: it was mostly of the manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 1,1)
Other quotes from St. Augustine on infant baptism and tradition are clear.
Webster/King try to limit these to practices or customs, but that’s another discussion. See my summary of Yves Congar about a hundred posts back.
Phil P
Perhaps, that would be the “material sufficiency” position. Actually it is the “Scriptures” that Paul refers to in Timothy that were the OT Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16). The Scripture itself does not limit tradition to the Bible nor imply anywhere that Scripture will “become” (sometime in the future) the “sole infallible rule of faith.” St. Paul commands tradition to be passed on (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2, 34; also 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). And that tradition was authoritative, infallible, inspired, the Word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:25; 1 Cor 2:4,7,13; etc).
Even if “material sufficiency” is granted (that all extant tradition and revelation in possession of the Church is confined to Scripture alone), there is still the question of the correct and true interpretation of the Scripture. Who has the authority to interpret Scripture correctly? As I’ve quoted repeatedly, the Reformed writer Mathison admits the visible Church is the true interpreter of Scripture, that we must listen to her since she has the final authority. On that Catholics and Orthodox agree. But you’ll have to come at least as far as Mathison before we discuss which Church that is.
Now according to many of the Fathers, there were traditions not recorded in Scripture. St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom are especially clear:
“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form ‘with the Spirit’ has NO written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is UNWRITTEN, then this must not be received. But if the GREAT NUMBER of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution WITHOUT written authority, then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. FOR I HOLD IT APOSTOLIC TO ABIDE BY THE UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. ‘I praise you,’ it is said, ‘that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you’ [1 Cor 11:2]; and ‘Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle’ [2 Thess 2:15]…One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their SUCCESSORS, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If as in a court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our aquittal? I think so; for ‘at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established’ [Matt 18:16; Deut 19:15]. And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge you with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with hoary antiquity” (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 71)
“‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by an epistle of ours’ [2 Thess 2:15]. Hence it is MANIFEST, that they did NOT deliver all things by Epistle, but MANY THINGS UNWRITTEN, and IN LIKE MANNER BOTH the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians 4,2)
“We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themsleves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are MANY THINGS which have been delivered by UNWRITTEN TRADITION. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they chiefly dwell is that pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoke little concerning His Godhead: it was mostly of the manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 1,1)
Other quotes from St. Augustine on infant baptism and tradition are clear.
Webster/King try to limit these to practices or customs, but that’s another discussion. See my summary of Yves Congar about a hundred posts back.
Phil P
:yup:
I’m not a novice to Catholic theology. I’m even aware that infallibility extends to the ordinary Magisterium, and not jus the Pope( of course only when speaking ex Cathedra )