Question about Tradition and Scripture

[Psalm89]

I am a Lutheran just to let you know. Over the last few months I have been reading and studying about Roman Catholicism and why the reformation happened. One interesting thing I’ve discovered is that Lutheranism is closer to Rome than a lot of Protestantism. Also, the issue was a personal one with Luther in the beginning, and it unfortunately exploded due to political pressures of the day.

A lot of discussions happen here about Tradition and Scripture. Specifically about sola scriptura, which brings me to my point.

Both Protestants and Catholics have traditions. Any protestant who claims they don’t have any traditions is kidding them selves. Most Protestants just claim that the Traditions are second to the bible itself. For instance we go to church on Sundays which is nothing more than a Tradition, and it can change. The Nicean creed is a tradition in our services as well, and we could take it out of the service, but we couldn’t change its meaning without contradicting scripture.

So when evaluating Tradition and Scripture, as being equal to Scripture being the sole and norm, how do Catholics pick which traditions are right? The Church fathers said many things, and I can’t imagine that every word is taken as doctrine—unless of course it could be claimed that the Church Fathers were infallible as well.

When looking at the truth claims of Lutheranism and Catholicism they both believe scripture is infallible, they both have traditions. The Lutherans claim that their traditions are correct, but not infallible. The Catholics claim their traditions are correct and infallible. Since both agree that scripture is infallible, it comes down to who’s traditions are true. Was a Catholic Theologian in 600 AD more correct about purgatory or was a Lutheran theologian in 1600 AD more correct? Saying that the guy in 600 AD is correct simply because it is in 600 AD is chronological snobbery. Truth is truth, whether somebody wrote it down in 2000 BC or 2000 AD.

Here is the real conundrum; the only way to check if purgatory is true is by checking the scriptures. Since the original theologian is prone to error at times I HAVE to check the only infallible thing that both Catholics and Protestants both agree is infallible. Well the Catholic Magisterium is infallible, but what do I check it against except scripture? How do I know that Peter was the first pope? The Catholic sends me to scripture. How do I know that purgatory is true, the Catholic gives me proof from scripture… That leads me right back to sola scriptura.

Thoughts?

 

[JimG]

To paraphrase Karl Keating, Catholics don’t believe that scripture is infallible. They believe that it is inerrant. Infallible means that one does not teach error. And the bible does not teach. It must be read and interpreted, by humans. The bible cannot say to you, ‘wait a minute, you misunderstood me.’ Only a teacher can do that. The teacher is and has been the Church, out of which came the scriptures.

 

[Psalm89]

JimG:

To paraphrase Karl Keating, Catholics don’t believe that scripture is infallible. They believe that it is inerrant. Infallible means that one does not teach error. And the bible does not teach. It must be read and interpreted, by humans. The bible cannot say to you, ‘wait a minute, you misunderstood me.’ Only a teacher can do that. The teacher is and has been the Church, out of which came the scriptures.

Correct. I realized this after I posted. Please change the world infallible with inerrant in your head.

My question remains.

 

[Vincent]

Psalm89:

Here is the real conundrum; the only way to check if purgatory is true is by checking the scriptures. Since the original theologian is prone to error at times I HAVE to check the only infallible thing that both Catholics and Protestants both agree is infallible. Well the Catholic Magisterium is infallible, but what do I check it against except scripture? How do I know that Peter was the first pope? The Catholic sends me to scripture. How do I know that purgatory is true, the Catholic gives me proof from scripture… That leads me right back to sola scriptura.

And then it raises the question of the tradition of the Scriptural canon. We can’t help but look outside Scripture itself to authenticate it.

Jimmy Akin’s “The Two Canons: Scripture and Tradition” deals with the dilemma you’re wondering about.

 

[JimG]

As you implied, both Catholics and Protestants teach out of their own traditions, using scripture as a support. While one may think that one is pulling his doctrine from scripture, what in most cases really happens is that one passes on what he has been taught. This passing on of teaching is the very nature of tradition, and is done in protestant churces as well as Catholic. One’s interpretation of the bible is part of that tradition.

Catholics believe that one method of handing on the teaching was in the writing of the scriptures, but the primary and original method was in the teaching of the apostles and the handing on of that teaching to their successors.

The source of revelation is Jesus Christ, from which flow the two springs of tradition and scripture. The way the apostles and all their successors are to measure a teaching is by the answer to the question: Is this what was handed down to us?

We also believe that the Holy Spirit, as the soul of the Church, guides it faithfully in preserving the teaching of its founder.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Psalm89:

Oftentimes, protestants mistake what Catholics mean by the word “Tradition.” As Catholics, we see a distinction between “Tradition” (capital “T”) and “tradition” (small “t”). The tradition with a small “t” can change, be modified, fall out of fashion, come into vogue, etc. Tradition with a captial “T” is that oral teaching which comes to us from the apostles. On the apologetics site, there is a good article that more clearly describes this distinction.

In faith,
Fiat

 

[YuRa]

Scripture is perfect and without fault; it does not contradict itself and is the absolute we follow. Tradition should never override Scripture. Tradition should be taken out of Scripture. In the sense that Scripture should be taken as a whole and read as a whole. All our doctrines and beliefs should be supported by Scripture.

I personally view tradition as a risk, because when we practice tradition, overtime we could be trying to change the meaning of Scripture. Here is an example: In all of our tomb or resurrecting plays we have the soldiers at the tomb being Roman soldiers, but in fact we do not know for sure if the soldiers at the tomb were Roman or just temple guards. Now I know them being Roman or temple guards is irrelevant to anything, but this example just shows how tradition can overpower Scripture.

Scripture alone hold all authority and no tradition of man can over power its content and meaning.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

YuRa:

Scripture is perfect and without fault; it does not contradict itself and is the absolute we follow. Tradition should never override Scripture. Tradition should be taken out of Scripture. In the sense that Scripture should be taken as a whole and read as a whole. All our doctrines and beliefs should be supported by Scripture.

I personally view tradition as a risk, because when we practice tradition, overtime we could be trying to change the meaning of Scripture. Here is an example: In all of our tomb or resurrecting plays we have the soldiers at the tomb being Roman soldiers, but in fact we do not know for sure if the soldiers at the tomb were Roman or just temple guards. Now I know them being Roman or temple guards is irrelevant to anything, but this example just shows how tradition can overpower Scripture.

Scripture alone hold all authority and no tradition of man can over power its content and meaning.

The scriptures are without error.Interperatations are another story To be able to correctly interperate scripture you have to have the Authority to do so.Where is your authority,is the real question.God Bless

 

[CARose]

JimG:

The source of revelation is Jesus Christ, from which flow the two springs of tradition and scripture. The way the apostles and all their successors are to measure a teaching is by the answer to the question: Is this what was handed down to us?

We also believe that the Holy Spirit, as the soul of the Church, guides it faithfully in preserving the teaching of its founder.

Good reply JimG, except you’ve missed one of the three springs which flow from the revelation of Jesus Christ, as seen in scripture. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, has left us Tradition, the Church (Magesterium), and Scripture, in that order. The tradition found in the Catholic Church consist, as so well stated by others on this thread of both Tradition (unchangable, infallible, such as the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist at the Consecration) and tradition (which songs are sung, whether Priests can marry).

The three prongs of support left for us throughout the ages can be seen as prefigured even in the Old Testiment, if you look at the Tabernacle. In it was the Manna from the Desert (prefiguring the Eucharist, the daily bread available to us through Tradition at daily Mass), the Rod of Aaron (prefiguring the Authority which is found in the Magesterium of the Catholic Church), and the Tablets (the written word of God, available to us today in the Scriptures).

Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church he left us. How can we suggest otherwise when it is stated that His Church turned to Apostacy, many saying this occurred as early as 100 yrs after Christ’s assension. If this was true, why did He say He would remain with us until the end of time? If His Church could fall into err, why wait 1600 years to correct things so that souls could again be safe? What makes us think that an error that God allowed to go uncorrected for 1500 years has now been held firm for the following 400 years.

Could it not be that Christ told us the truth when He promised He’d remain with us? Could it not be that He was sincere when He said He was giving us a Church that would be the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth” (some translations refer to it as the “Pillar and Bulwarks” (protecting walls) “of the Truth”)? I, for one, believe that what Christ told us in the Scriptures is reliable. Hence, I accept the authority of His Church, and I accept that Tradition was and remains an excellent means of teaching our children. As an adult, I came back to the church after a number of years away. I was AMAZED at how quickly I came to know the truth of Christ, due to things I had inhaled as a child, truths I hadn’t even realized I was being exposed to. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a wonderful study of scripture, a gift from God where we are given the opportunity to be present, outside the constraints of time, at the most wonderful, the most loving gift of Christ, His passion at Calvary.

He gave up His body for us, and He makes it available to us through all times so that our sins might be forgiven. He told us very sincerely that we need to eat His flesh and Drink His Blood to have life. I believe Him. And the only Tradition I know of which accepts even this, the most difficult of His teachings, is the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This Church has existed without break from the days of the Apostles. Christ founded it, the Holy Spirit Guides it and I love it.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Vincent]

CARose:

Good reply JimG, except you’ve missed one of the three springs which flow from the revelation of Jesus Christ, as seen in scripture.

I can’t speak for Jim, but it looks like he’s referring to the way Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 9 explains it:

“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.”

 

[Verbum]

Hi Psalm__,

… how do Catholics pick which traditions are right?

We don’t count traditions. We believe that Tradition (from “tradere”, to hand down) is what the apostles handed down to us from Christ. It is both written (Scripture) and unwritten. It is what the Church teaches.

Because Tradition, written and unwritten, is the Word of God, iIt is infallible, because God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Well the Catholic Magisterium is infallible, but what do I check it against except Scripture?

The Catholic Magisterium, though it has been given the mission to teach, is NOT, ordinarily, infallible. But because it has been given the authority to teach, we have the duty to be taught, that is to receive the teaching with respect and strive to apply it to the best of our ability.

Occasionally, the Magisterium, either in the form of an ecumenical council or represented by the Pope, makes a solemn pronouncement. This is infallible teaching as it reflects the Word of God, either or unwritten, or both.

This is not to say that we must believe only what has heen solemnly defined. The consensus of believers in unity with their bishops is just as trustworthy as a solemn defintion. The day before the Assumption was defined, Catholics who would have rejected that teaching would have been sinning against faith. On the day after, they would have been classified as heretics. That is the only difference.

The belief of most Catholics is from testimonial

My mother, who was a devout Christian, never read the Bible. She received her faith from her parents, her priests, her teachers and many others, who likewise received it from others… and this goes all the way back to the apostles, who were witnesses to the Resurrection. How could she accept this? Through the gift of faith, she KNEW that Christ is resurrected and is still living with us, to the point where we are closely united to Him in the Eucharist. She KNEW that what she was taught was true because the living Christ is still with us to guide the Church and the faithful.
Well, you might say, this also applies to Lutherans. They have been handed down the faith from generation through generation, just like Catholics. To this I answer: If this is so, if they believed that Christ remained with His Church always, how could they conclude that His Church was wrong? They broke the chain and separated themselves from the apostles they were previously linked to. They are drifting on their own and Christ is not in their boat.

Only God can convince

My friend, if ever you become a Catholic, it will not be because you were convinced by biblical quotes, by the writing of Bergson or Scott Hahn., although these may be the occasions God might use to draw you to Him. It will be because God’s grace will have made you see what my mother saw from the day she became aware of her Savior.

Verbum

 

[YuRa]

I see that it is no use arguing with the common day Catholic. You rely on your own righteousness to get you into Heaven. You believe your deeds surpass the deeds credited to you when you receive Christ’s righteousness by faith. Paul calls it a false gospel that isn’t a gospel at all. That was his whole letter to the Eph.

I know now my blunt statement will get deleted as well as my account, but the word of God will never see decay! It is clear faith alone saves without any effort of man, everything else derives from faith including works. I hope God will bless you and you will except the gospel and also have a place in eternity. Until then you are damned to the eternal flames of Hell.

Sola gratia, sola Christo, sola fide, and sola Scriptura equals Soli Deo Gloria!

By grace alone through Christ alone by faith alone, and also Scripture alone as authority will equal all the Glory to Him alone! God fulfils His purpose for the vessels of mercy and the vessels of destruction without fail. May you be a vessel of mercy and except His sacrifice on the cross and through faith alone be saved.

God bless you all.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

YuRa:

Scripture is perfect and without fault; it does not contradict itself and is the absolute we follow. Tradition should never override Scripture. Tradition should be taken out of Scripture. In the sense that Scripture should be taken as a whole and read as a whole. All our doctrines and beliefs should be supported by Scripture.

Hi YuRa!

I think you may misunderstand what the Catholic means by “Tradition” with the big “T”. Strictly speaking, Tradition is the entire deposit of faith. In that way, scripture is really a part of the Christian Tradition. A “Tradition” is really just a teaching. Since Tradition predates scripture Tradition can’t be taken out of it.

The problem with your statement “all our doctrines and beliefs should be supported by Scripture” is that that statement can’t be supported by Scripture. Your statement is self-refuting. Certainly scripture indicates that scripture authoritative, but it never hints anywhere that “all our doctrines and beliefs should be supported by Scripture”. That is a Tradition that you adhere to.

I personally view tradition as a risk, because when we practice tradition, overtime we could be trying to change the meaning of Scripture. Here is an example: In all of our tomb or resurrecting plays we have the soldiers at the tomb being Roman soldiers, but in fact we do not know for sure if the soldiers at the tomb were Roman or just temple guards. Now I know them being Roman or temple guards is irrelevant to anything, but this example just shows how tradition can overpower Scripture.

This wouldn’t really be considered “Tradition” as Catholics use the term.

Scripture alone hold all authority and no tradition of man can over power its content and meaning.

Indeed true of small “t” traditions. But big “T” Tradition and Scripture both have the holy Spirit as their source. Quite a different matter.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[john_ennis]

Man, she did this like on every thread!

Anyway, like I said,

Sola Fide…don’t I wish.

Thanks again, Martin L.

Peace
John

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

YuRa:

I see that it is no use arguing with the common day Catholic. You rely on your own righteousness to get you into Heaven. You believe your deeds surpass the deeds credited to you when you receive Christ’s righteousness by faith. Paul calls it a false gospel that isn’t a gospel at all. That was his whole letter to the Eph.

I know now my blunt statement will get deleted as well as my account, but the word of God will never see decay! It is clear faith alone saves without any effort of man, everything else derives from faith including works. I hope God will bless you and you will except the gospel and also have a place in eternity. Until then you are damned to the eternal flames of Hell.

Sola gratia, sola Christo, sola fide, and sola Scriptura equals Soli Deo Gloria!

By grace alone through Christ alone by faith alone, and also Scripture alone as authority will equal all the Glory to Him alone! God fulfils His purpose for the vessels of mercy and the vessels of destruction without fail. May you be a vessel of mercy and except His sacrifice on the cross and through faith alone be saved.

God bless you all.

Hi YuRa!

You might try 2 Tim 2:23-26 rather than cutting and pasting the same thing on every board.

Friendly, respectful conversation can certainly go a long way!

In Christ,
Nancy