B
bookgirl32
Guest
So do you disagree with the equal authority of Tradition and Scripture as interpreted through the authority of the Church?
- Status
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
And my post had nothing to do with apostolic succession. I was stating what the Fathers believed, which is neither what Catholics nor Lutherans nor any other group believes.
In short, they believed that they, the Church, have the authority to pass on the teaching of the Apostles, which is contained in Scripture. To properly understand Scripture, however, we must use the Tradition of the Church.
That sounds Catholic enough, and that’s what I always thought the Catholic Church’s teaching was until recently. Dei Verbum, however, says that Scripture and Tradition are separate things, and that some things which are contained in Tradition are not contained in Scripture. That is not what the Fathers taught. But its because of such statements that people on this forum have had to say things like “Well, the Trinity is not in Scripture. If you believe in SS, then you can’t believe in the Trinity.”
B
bookgirl32
Guest
It’s not that you CAN’T believe in the Trinity. It’s that the standpoint of Sola Scriptura, (or Solo) do not necessarily support it. I do believe it’s implied in Scripture, but I believe it’s the interpretation of the Church that clarifies, b/c just reading the Bible does not clarify enough (even in not saying “Trinity”) for eveyone to agree on exactly what the Bible says about the Trinity.
Please show me where the Church Fathers taught exactly what you said above.
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
I gave you a reference already: JND Kelly’s book “Early Christian Doctrine.” He was an eminent Patristic scholar at Oxford.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
So I’m taking one book to be truth (and this is NOT the book that is claimed by so many to be authoritative above all other truth?) I’m assuming this book is Kelly’s interpretation of the Church fathers, correct? Oxford, last time I checked, may have a TINY bit of reason to search for intepretations of the Church fathers going against the RCC.
The point is, if it IS authoritative ABOVE all other truth, and not in conjuction WITH all other revealed truth (and subsequently interpreted by the authority of the “keeper” of truth), then you HAVE to prove it from scripture. By your own argument (either sola or solo or prima scriptura). And you can’t, because scripture does not say this.
I’m sorry that you feel let down by the Church, but the Church (back to when Jesus founded it), never taught what you thought that it did. I would feel more let down by the division in Christianity, and the subsequent plethora of interpretations to “choose” from, that confused you.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
They are different, yes, but are equal in authority.
One is verbally handed down and one is written.
easy.
and as far as the church fathers are concerned, they taught and believed catholic teaching, normatively.
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
Arguing against straw-men is always easier than critical thought and serious dialogue, isn’t it?
B
bookgirl32
Guest
As is accusing me of setting up a straw man and not choosing to elaborate on how.
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
You keep making Sola Scriptura into something I never claimed it to be.
I suppose that what is even worse is that you basically said that only Catholic scholarship is worth listening to.
So much for dialogue!
B
bookgirl32
Guest
As is accusing me of setting up a straw man and not choosing to elaborate on how.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Whoops, I don’t know how that copy of that post got on there, sorry.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
You didn’t quote me the Church Fathers, you told me to read a book, that’s not dialogue either!
I’m saying that putting scripture only, or the only authoritative, or the supreme authoritative source, makes you have to prove everything from scripture only. And I don’t see how you can do that. I’m not telling you you believe in the Bible alone, but even if it is your supreme authority, you still have to “check” everything to the Bible to make sure it’s true, and if personal interpretation of the Bible is allowed (outside of Church authority), then you can make anything true or not true, because the Bible doesn’t interpret itself.
J
JTBT
Guest
What is wrong with that? do you not agree that if a teaching conflicts with scripture then it is wrong.
and that is what we do. {1 Thes. 21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good}
C
clmowry
Guest
John 20:30-31
- Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
- but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and believing you may have life in His name.
All John seems, to me, to be claiming here is that He wrote his gospel that we might come to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
He does not seem to be making the expanded claim that he has told you everything you must do to “have life in His name” (though he may have done so)
Chuck
B
bookgirl32
Guest
If a teaching conflicts with Scripture, Tradition, or the God-given authority of the Church to interpret either, then it is wrong. With personal interpretation, many things could indeed conflict with that iterpretation. It doesn’t mean they’re actually conflicting with scripture. Again, I’m not arguing against the authority of scripture, I’m arguing against the idea of personal interpretation which, by way of denying the interpreting authority of the Church, allows scripture to be misinterpreted, but then be the final authority. Scripture does not interpret itself, would you agree?
First of all, if only scripture is what’s good, then why are you a “sola” and not a “solo”? And where does that quote say, “and check it to scripture”?
C
clmowry
Guest
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26
Do other SS believers feel that this verse applies to their individual interpretation of scripture?
Chuck
C
clmowry
Guest
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
I assume when you say that I have to prove everything from Scripture alone, you mean all religious truths pertaining to salvation.
I digress…
"The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men.” - Acts 17:10-12
You say that we can’t check everything against Scripture, yet that’s just what the Bereans are being praised for. If they had found that what Paul and Silas were preaching was NOT in the Scriptures, do you think they would have believed? Not likely. Why would they be praised, then?
(And yes, I know that their Scriptures were only the Old Testament. That’s irrelevant. The New Testament is Scripture for us, and the same rules apply. Why would the Jews be praised for checking the Scriptures to “see whether these things were so” yet the Christians not be praised for this?)
If I say, “I’m checking the Scriptures to see of what the Catholic Church teaches is so?” would you praise me for this, or would you condemn me?
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
No, but that doesn’t mean that they accepted everything they quoted from as being inspired or canonical. Just as we might quote from the Didache to argue for some teaching, so would they.
A
ABostonCatholic
Guest
Here is what I said the teaching of the Fathers is:
“In short, they believed that they, the Church, have the authority to pass on the teaching of the Apostles, which is contained in Scripture. To properly understand Scripture, however, we must use the Tradition of the Church.”
I understand that as being one form of Sola Scriptura, and one many Protestants hold. A poorer form, which prevents us from using anything outside of Scripture itself to interpret Scripture, is more common among “fundamentalist” Protestants.
The real question is what is meant by “Tradition.” For the Fathers, the question was “Is this an innovation, or is this an historical belief?” The Reformers and later Protestants were aware of this criteria, too. So, for example, the Book of Concord made attempts to link Lutheran doctrine to the Fathers. Baptists such as John T. Christian attempted to establish the apostolic links of the Baptist church. (Whether or not they were successful is another matter altogether.)
While Dei Verbum acknowledges this, it goes a step farther and defines Tradition as some positive thing which contains dogma that Scripture does not.
For example:
“Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.” - Dei Verbum.9
Now, here is a quote from one of the Fathers, St. Vincent of Lerins:
[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,— because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as manyinterpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
- Status