Protestants DENY Tradition?

[KjetilK]

It is not Catholic teaching that Tradition is less than scripture.

Are you saying, then, that Ratzinger is wrong when he says that Scripture takes primacy over Tradition? If not, can you point out where my exegesis of Ratzinger went wrong?

And can you explain what you think sola scriptura means?

 

[benjohnson]

Did God the Father and Jesus Christ really want us to spend so much energy and time on Mary, or is that just human fancy?

From a distance, I can see where you may get this idea - and indeed there are individual Catholics who seem a bit over the top in devotion to the Theotokos (Mother of God.)

But to be fair, in the Rosary they’re asking Mary to pray for all us sinners. Nothing wrong with that at all, and I’m happy that Catholics do this.

JonNC (another poster here on these forums) pointed this out as well - look at what Chemnitz has in his left hand.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Jubilarian]

Are you saying, then, that Ratzinger is wrong when he says that Scripture takes primacy over Tradition? If not, can you point out where my exegesis of Ratzinger went wrong?

And can you explain what you think sola scriptura means?

Ratzinger does everything to say that Tradition and scripture rely on one another. He stresses the importance of each. You might as well get into a “chicken or the egg” argument. What’s wrong is your interpretation of his words, not him.

Read the Catechism I posted on the matter which you continue to avoid.

 

[adf417]

From a distance, I can see where you may get this idea - and indeed there are individual Catholics who seem a bit over the top in devotion to the Theotokos (Mother of God.)

But to be fair, in the Rosary they’re asking Mary to pray for all us sinners. Nothing wrong with that at all, and I’m happy that Catholics do this.

JonNC (another poster here on these forums) pointed this out as well - look at what Chemnitz has in his left hand.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fN6izmzM5ww/UJ0dFjJ3NtI/AAAAAAAAC9c/PUVHADtp4x4/s1600/Chemnitz,+Martin.jpg

Hey ben I can’t tell. Is his right index finger marking the book of Sirach or is that Wisdom?

Peace!!!

 

[benjohnson]

Hey ben I can’t tell. Is his right index finger marking the book of Sirach or is that Wisdom?

Peace!!!

Well played

But being German Luther bible, his finger would be on Prayer of Manasseh! HA!

 

[KjetilK]

Ratzinger does everything to say that Tradition and scripture rely on one another. He stresses the importance of each. You might as well get into a “chicken or the egg” argument. What’s wrong is your interpretation of his words, not him.

Since you have made it clear that you obviously hasn’t read the piece in question I kindly restate my request: Show me where I am wrong in my reading of Ratzinger.

That would, of course, mean you actually have to read his words before commenting on them.

 

[JonNC]

=Jubilarian;12723592]If your Lutheran doctrines don’t support Sola Sciptura, that’s okay. You can not deny that thousands of Protestant denominations hold to it it. To say that this does not constitute a common thread is odd.

Even sola scriptura is not universal, if again one uses an overly broad definition of protestant. Additionally, the classical practice of sola scriptura, which does not exclude, but instead embraces Tradition, isn’t practiced by later developing communions, particularly here in America.

How many times are you going to revisit an issue I clarified . Putting that aside, for some reason, even after I showed you one (t)radition like celibacy before ordination

And again, even this is not universal within the Eastern particular churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

You act as if many Protestant denominations are requiring this before graduating from seminary school …

Few do, that I know of, meaning the practice of allowing married priests/pastors is more in keeping with Eastern tradition. I assume that since the Latin Church thinks that’s ok, you do, too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well played

But being German Luther bible, his finger would be on Prayer of Manasseh! HA!

Looking closely, I’d say Tobit.

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

Since you have made it clear that you obviously hasn’t read the piece in question I kindly restate my request: Show me where I am wrong in my reading of Ratzinger.

That would, of course, mean you actually have to read his words before commenting on them.

You are no reading my words. I told you the meaning of Ratzingers writings.

For a person that claims that something needs to read, you sure have done an excellent job of running away from reading and responding to the Catechism of the CC which is very clear about the equality of Tradition with scripture.

Why don’t you post Ratzinger’s words saying that scripture is not equal with Tradition instead of subjective sentences that YOU have determined means the opposite?

 

[Jubilarian]

Even sola scriptura is not universal, if again one uses an overly broad definition of protestant. Additionally, the classical practice of sola scriptura, which does not exclude, but instead embraces Tradition, isn’t practiced by later developing communions, particularly here in America.

And again, even this is not universal within the Eastern particular churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Few do, that I know of, meaning the practice of allowing married priests/pastors is more in keeping with Eastern tradition. I assume that since the Latin Church thinks that’s ok, you do, too.

Jon

You inserted the word “universal”. I did not make such a claim. I said Sola Scriptura is a common thread within Protestant denominations.

Stop tossing in every religious body that comes to mind as well. I’ve made distinctions where necessary.

The CC allows for married men, whether of the Protestant faith or Eastern Rite to become priests …PERIOD.

 

[adf417]

Looking closely, I’d say Tobit.

Jon

You may be right Jon. It would be easier to tell if they weren’t so hidden.

 

[JonNC]

You may be right Jon. It would be easier to tell if they weren’t so hidden.

Lol

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

I told you the meaning of Ratzingers writings.

I asked you to show, not tell, me where my reading is off. Please quote Ratzinger, show that you have actually read him, then show me where my reading of Ratzinger is wrong.

For a person that claims that something needs to read, you sure have done an excellent job of running away from reading and responding to the Catechism of the CC which is very clear about the equality of Tradition with scripture.

OK. The paragraphs in question is 81-82:

"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

I really do not see your point. It says that you need to assent to Tradition, but the same is true of Lutheran teaching. The question is: Can something be binding even though something else have primacy? And the answer to that is obviously yes.

In Dei Verbum 24, we read: “Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation.” This sentence tells us that Scripture and Tradition belong together, and cannot be separated. But we see that primacy is given to Scripture. Or else the sentence would read: “Sacred theology rests on the written word of God and on sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation.”

The paragraph goes on: “By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that word. For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired, really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology.” The soul of sacred theology, then, is the study of Scripture.

Note that nowhere does it say that Tradition came through inspiration. Now, please show me where Ratzinger went wrong.

Why don’t you post Ratzinger’s words saying that scripture is not equal with Tradition instead of subjective sentences that YOU have determined means the opposite?

I have, but instad of engaging with them you decided to say that I was a fundamentalist for taking the clear and consise words of Ratzinger at face value.

 

[JonNC]

=Jubilarian;12724597]You inserted the word “universal”. I did not make such a claim. I said Sola Scriptura is a common thread within Protestant denominations.

I didn’t say you used the word “universal”. I used it. But even the word common might be misconstrued by some, hence the clarification I offered.

Stop tossing in every religious body that comes to mind as well. I’ve made distinctions where necessary.

I didn’t toss in “every religious body”. The Eastern Catholic churches are part of the Catholic Church.

The CC allows for married men, whether of the Protestant faith or Eastern Rite to become priests …PERIOD.

So, you’re saying that the difference in discipline regarding the married status of clergy is not a significant difference in tradition between us?

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

I asked you to show, not tell, me where my reading is off. Please quote Ratzinger, show that you have actually read him, then show me where my reading of Ratzinger is wrong.

Firstly, YOU quoted Ratzinger, claiming superior knowledge of his words and I responded. As an aside, I was debating two individuals on this topic, I don’t recall which person received which portion of information, so keep that in mind. I responded to the Sentence he wrote that you “started me off with”. So , I “told you” where you reading was off. If you have further words that you believe to be clear and concise from Ratzinger, present them.

OK. The paragraphs in question is 81-82:

"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

I really do not see your point. It says that you need to assent to Tradition, but the same is true of Lutheran teaching. The question is: Can something be binding even though something else have primacy? And the answer to that is obviously yes.

In Dei Verbum 24, we read: “Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation.” This sentence tells us that Scripture and Tradition belong together, and cannot be separated. But we see that primacy is given to Scripture. Or else the sentence would read: “Sacred theology rests on the written word of God and on sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation.”

The paragraph goes on: “By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that word. For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired, really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology.” The soul of sacred theology, then, is the study of Scripture.

Note that nowhere does it say that Tradition came through inspiration. Now, please show me where Ratzinger went wrong.

The fact that you read this and don’t see the equality of Sacred Scripture with Sacred Tradition is troubling. Scripture is the word of God, in that we can hopefully agree. Unfortunately, the word “assent”, is in your head. You are coming at this with a possible bias.Secondly, you must know that we don’t have the scriptures without Tradition existing first, for communicative purposes. Obviously the word of God (scripture) existed before all things, but it must have a mode of transport, hence the necessity for Tradition to “rest” upon scripture. Equality is essential for functionality. If Tradion is the “foundation”, it must be equal to scripture.

The Catechism says they both must be honored with **EQUAL SENTIMENT.**Sentiment is defined as: a view of or attitude toward a situation or event, an opinion. The Catechism is telling you to look at Tradiion with the SAME view or opinions as scripture.

I have, but instad of engaging with them you decided to say that I was a fundamentalist for taking the clear and consise words of Ratzinger at face value.

Here we have a problem as well. Various denominations can take a passage of scripture and read it two completely different ways. Doctrines are built on such things. You are reading Ratzinger with a different pair of glasses. Scripture must be equal to Tradition within the CC. Ratzinger, breaking down how Scripture and Tradition plays out is not an endorsement of inequality.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If “always, everywhere and by all” is undefined it becomes an ever moving goalpost.

And if it’s defined as “sometimes, a few places, and by some” it becomes a goalpost that can justify any proclamation of dogma.

 

[KjetilK]

Firstly, YOU quoted Ratzinger, claiming superior knowledge of his words and I responded.

I cited Ratzinger, and you said this: “I disagree with your reading of Ratzinger’s writtings.” But you haven’t shown me why this reading is wrong. Note that I am not asking you to agree or disagree, but to show me where I have misread Ratzinger’s point. But the problem is that you obviously haven’t read the pages in question, yet believe yourself to be in a position to pontificate on what Ratzinger really meant.

As an aside, I was debating two individuals on this topic, I don’t recall which person received which portion of information, so keep that in mind.

You could, of course, read the posts before responding. That could give you a hint.

I responded to the Sentence he wrote that you “started me off with”. So , I “told you” where you reading was off. If you have further words that you believe to be clear and concise from Ratzinger, present them.

I have presented my case. You disagree with it. But you also claim that I am misreading Ratzinger. But you haven’t shown me where I am misreading him. Doing that actually means you have to read the text in question. So before you do so, the conclusion is that you do not only disagree with me, but with arguably one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century. But you seem terrified to admit that you disagree with him and insist that I am misreading him, even though you obviously haven’t read the text in question.

The fact that you read this and don’t see the equality of Sacred Scripture with Sacred Tradition is troubling.

So you just ignore my citation of Dei Verbum, then? Remember that Dei Verbum is a dogmatic constitution.

Scripture is the word of God, in that we can hopefully agree. Unfortunately, the word “assent”, is in your head. You are coming at this with a possible bias.

Such as?

Secondly, you must know that we don’t have the scriptures without Tradition existing first, for communicative purposes.

And? The US constitution didn’t emerge out of nothing, yet it still has primacy in American Law. You seem to think primacy can be measured temporally.

Obviously the word of God (scripture) existed before all things, but it must have a mode of transport, hence the necessity for Tradition to “rest” upon scripture. Equality is essential for functionality. If Tradion is the “foundation”, it must be equal to scripture.

That is your reading, but it is not shared by Ratzinger.

The Catechism says they both must be honored with EQUAL SENTIMENT. Sentiment is defined as: a view of or attitude toward a situation or event, an opinion. The Catechism is telling you to look at Tradiion with the SAME view or opinions as scripture.

They are both true, yes, but you read one through the other.

Here we have a problem as well. Various denominations can take a passage of scripture and read it two completely different ways. Doctrines are built on such things. You are reading Ratzinger with a different pair of glasses. Scripture must be equal to Tradition within the CC. Ratzinger, breaking down how Scripture and Tradition plays out is not an endorsement of inequality.

Can you just please show me where I was wrong? I haven’t seen a single citation from any of the 14 pages of his book.

 

[crai7]

What about those who were second hand witnesses? Those who rely on the Apostles teaching them?

The same is true today, when my priest reads a letter from my bishop on Sunday for all to hear, I imagine Timothy doing the same for his flock with Paul’s writings.

Sure, but what about those that have been questioned and accepted? Why keep rehashing it until the decision agrees with your position?

Who are you to decide what frequency is too high and how can you read into the hearts and minds of the reciter? One need not wonder about another’s intention unless they tell you something contrary explicitly, since it is between their soul and their God.

Again, this is a limited definition of prayer that Catholics/Orthodox do not limit ourselves to. We use the word prayer to mean more than your limitation.

What would Luther or Calvin say?

1.) In relation to point one. I was asserting the greater reliability of the scriptures as a source of information on Jesus’s own words and actions. Since they were written by first hand witnesses (not just any-old witnesses but Jesus chosen disciples) I would say they are more reliable than verbally transmitted traditions that popped up later and are of unknown origin/source. Not sure what “second hand” witnesses you are referring to?
3.) In relation to point 3 - what traditions are you referring to that have been “questioned” and “accepted”?
4.) High frequency implies that it is important to you.

What do you mean by “this is a limited definition of prayer that Catholics/Orthodox do not limit ourselves to.”?

 

[Jubilarian]

I cited Ratzinger, and you said this: “I disagree with your reading of Ratzinger’s writtings.” But you haven’t shown me why this reading is wrong. Note that I am not asking you to agree or disagree, but to show me where I have misread Ratzinger’s point. But the problem is that you obviously haven’t read the pages in question, yet believe yourself to be in a position to pontificate on what Ratzinger really meant.

i certainly have read the material. The problem is that there is enormous ground to cover. I’ve decided to approach it using reliable source material and amplify where necessary… The following are conclusions drawn from Razingers words:
The theology of the Bible elaborated by Pope Benedict XVI in the course of almost fifty years might be summarized in ten theses.
The word of God must be approached with sympathetic understanding, a readiness to experience something new, and a readiness to be taken along a new path (cf. God’s Word, 116).
A true understanding of the Bible calls for a philosophy that is open to analogy and participation, and not based on the dogmatism of a worldview derived from natural science (cf. God’s Word, 118).
The exegete may not exclude, a priori, the possibility that God could speak in human words in this world, or that God could act in history and enter into it (cf. God’s Word, 116).
Faith is a component of biblical interpretation, and God is a factor in historical events (cf. God’s Word, 126).
Besides being seen in their historical setting and interpreted in their historical contexts, the texts of Scripture must be seen from the perspective of the movement of history as a whole and of Christ as the central event.
Because the biblical word bears witness to revelation, a biblical passage can signify more than its author was able to conceive in composing it (cf.God’s Word, 123).
The exegetical question cannot be solved by simply retreating into the Middle Ages or the Fathers, nor can it renounce the insights of the great believers of all ages, as if the history of thought began seriously only with Kant (cf. God’s Word, 114 and 125).
**Dei Verbum envisioned a synthesis of historical method and theological hermeneutics, but did not elaborate it. **The theological part of its statements needs to be attended to (cf. God’s Word, 98-99).
Exegesis is theological, as Dei Verbum taught, particularly on these points: (1) Sacred Scripture is a unity, and individual texts are understood in light of the whole. (2) The one historical subject that traverses all of Scripture is the people of God. (3) Scripture must be read from the Church as its true hermeneutical key. Thus, Tradition does not obstruct access to Scripture but opens it; and, conversely, the Church has a decisive say in the interpretation of Scripture (cf. God’s Word, 97).
Theology may not be detached from its foundation in the Bible or be independent of exegesis (cf. God’s Word, 93).
My words- Tradition , the foundation, CAN NOT be detached from the bible. Tradition opens scripture. You see inequality here? Reflect also on the word “synthesis”.

You could, of course, read the posts before responding. That could give you a hint.

I’ll give you that one.

I have presented my case. You disagree with it. But you also claim that I am misreading Ratzinger. But you haven’t shown me where I am misreading him. Doing that actually means you have to read the text in question. So before you do so, the conclusion is that you do not only disagree with me, but with arguably one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century. But you seem terrified to admit that you disagree with him and insist that I am misreading him, even though you obviously haven’t read the text in question.

You have sadly presented a weak case. The material in question has been countered. I have shown you Razingers words and the Catechism which both support the equal standing of both scripture and Tradition. Yes, Razingers put an emphasis on scripture, and rightfully so. He was even accused of heading towards Protestantism at one time. However, he always makes sure never to seperate Tradition from scripture. At no time does he say they are unequal. “Primacy” indicates importance .

So you just ignore my citation of Dei Verbum, then? Remember that Dei Verbum is a dogmatic constitution.

I have never ignored it.

Can you just please show me where I was wrong? I haven’t seen a single citation

That’s been done . And , let it be sealed in your brain that the Cathechism of the CC states that Tradition should be held to EQUAL SENTIMENT . This is something you seem to have rationalized and glossed over.

 

[crai7]

From a distance, I can see where you may get this idea - and indeed there are individual Catholics who seem a bit over the top in devotion to the Theotokos (Mother of God.)

But to be fair, in the Rosary they’re asking Mary to pray for all us sinners. Nothing wrong with that at all, and I’m happy that Catholics do this.

JonNC (another poster here on these forums) pointed this out as well - look at what Chemnitz has in his left hand.

Sure, no problem with the original Rosary, or the use of beads for counting prayers. Yes I am aware that you ask Mary to pray for you and you are not praying to her… but I’m still not sure where this way of praying came from. I have not found any references to individuals asking the deceased to pray for them in either the OT or NT.