Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[guanophore]

I am having a difficulty in arguing against Sola Scriptura.

On one hand many apologists state that the Catholic Church fully agrees that the Scriptures are materially sufficient. But Sola Scriptura fails because it also claims formal sufficiency for Scripture (ie, it interprets itself, or the average reader can do so with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

On the other hand the writings of the Church Fathers are full of references to Apostolic Tradition handed down in addition to Scripture.

How do I reconcile the two? It seems to me that Scripture cannot be materially sufficient if there is additional revelation contained only in Sacred Tradition.

I am probably missing something in my logic here, and I would appreciate any responses that could help clear up this confusion for me. I don’t really need any other explanations of the failings of sola scriptura, because I have studied it extensively and fully agree that it cannot be supported. I just need clarification of this one point I mentioned above.

Thanks!

There is a great thread here:

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=150710

I don’t agree with everything in it, but it does a great job of explaining the primacy of tradition.

It seems to me that Scripture cannot be materially sufficient if there is additional revelation contained only in Sacred Tradition.

Why does it seem that way? Can the skeleton not be present, though it is not fleshed out?

I'd welcome other ideas as well, because something sounds misleading about saying Tradition is not necessary.

Jesus does not do things that are unnecessary. Jesus used Sacred Tradition throughout His lifetime, and preached with it, as did His apostles. Jesus set things up so that the Sacred Tradition could be passed on. Protestants generally do not distinguish between the traditions of men, spoken against in the NT, and Sacred Tradition (that part of the Divine Deposit of Faith handed down through the Apostles).

2 Tim 2:1-3
2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and **hold to the traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The faith was handed from one bishop to another by word of mouth:

2 Tim 2:1-3
2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and **what you have heard **from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

The writings were a supplement to the oral teaching:
1 Tim 3:14-16

14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

The church, not the scriptures, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Nowhere in the scriptures does it teach that it is the sole source of authority. In fact, when there is a dispute, it is to be taken to the church!

Matt 18:17
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church"

the authority belonged to the Apostles, which they passed on through the process of ordination:

3 John 9

9 I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority."

The written word proceeds out from the Apostolic authority.

 

[SyCarl]

But in the same way, I can trust the authority of Scripture without an infallible source to tell me.

 

[NotWorthy]

But in the same way, I can trust the authority of Scripture without an infallible source to tell me.

Oh, really? That’s why we have confusion on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, does Baptism save you, do works help us, can infants be baptized?

Yeah, you’re right.

 

[teachccd]

But in the same way, I can trust the authority of Scripture without an infallible source to tell me.

Nonsense. The Book of Mormon claims authority and inspiration. How would you and your lone Bible dialogue with a Mormon who has a book that claims the same authority??

 

[SyCarl]

Well Jude has told us that the faith was once for all handed down. There cannot be new revelation which The Book of Mormon claims to be. In addition, the Mormons insist that there was a total; apostasy until Joseph Smith. This would deny the scriptural promis made by Jesus to the Church, and by this I mean the tru invisible Church, not the visible.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well Jude has told us that the faith was once for all handed down. There cannot be new revelation which The Book of Mormon claims to be. In addition, the Mormons insist that there was a total; apostasy until Joseph Smith.

So, you’re forcing me not to use Scripture, but then you are turning it against this objection?

This would deny the scriptural promis made by Jesus to the Church, and by this I mean the tru invisible Church, not the visible.

Oh, you mean the one that is the Light of the World, the City set on a Hill.

Sy, that would mean the Catholic Church, my friend.

 

[porthos11]

Well Jude has told us that the faith was once for all handed down. There cannot be new revelation which The Book of Mormon claims to be. In addition, the Mormons insist that there was a total; apostasy until Joseph Smith. This would deny the scriptural promis made by Jesus to the Church, and by this I mean the tru invisible Church, not the visible.

Still brings us to the same old question. How do we know Jude is inspired?

 

[NotWorthy]

In addition, the Mormons insist that there was a total; apostasy until Joseph Smith. This would deny the scriptural promis made by Jesus to the Church, and by this I mean the tru invisible Church, not the visible.

There are numerous faiths that make this same assertion. Basically, nearly the whole Protestant faith has to make this assumption.

 

[SyCarl]

Still brings us to the same old question. How do we know Jude is inspired?

And how do we know that the Church is infallible? By tradition, which is the Church simply saying it is infallible because it says so.

 

[NotWorthy]

And how do we know that the Church is infallible? By tradition, which is the Church simply saying it is infallible because it says so.

Don’t forget the Head-Man. “What you bind on earth…”

 

[teachccd]

And how do we know that the Church is infallible? By tradition, which is the Church simply saying it is infallible because it says so.

Careful. That Church gave you your Bible…You’re welcome

Oh wait, it fell from the sky leather bound. What?? Someone had to discern which 27 out of the 110 apostolic writings were inspired?? Gee, who could those people be?? Not an infallible Church?? Was it left behind by Jesus Himself?? HMMMM…So much to ponder…

 

[inkaneer]

You are missing my point. If the Church is the only one who can interpret Scripture correctly, should he not be telling them how the Church has interpretted it rather then telling them how to do it on their own whatever method they use.

You state the issue incorrectly. The Church is not the only one who can interpret Scripture CORRECTLY. However, the Church is the only one who can interpret Scripture AUTHORITATIVELY. You can interpret Scripture correctly if your interpretation agrees with the the authoritative interpretation of the Church. If it does not then your interpretation, not the Church’s, is incorrect.

 

[SyCarl]

There are numerous faiths that make this same assertion. Basically, nearly the whole Protestant faith has to make this assumption.

My belief is that the cause of division is the pride of man. God does not tell us everything and there is no reason that he has to. However man in his pride wants to know everything and thinks that he has the right to. To claim greater knowledge he makes assumptions, reasons or draws conclusions about things that God has chosen to leave as mysteries. He fails to consider that if the Bible appears to make contradictory assertions, that they are only contradictory in human terms. What may seem impossible to us is possible for God. Calvinists talk of election and irresistable Grace while others assert freewill. There are passages that can be cited for both positions and inteligent and learned men have argued on both sides. I am prepared to say God has predestined and elected us but still gives us a real choice. How is that possible? I don’t know but I trust that for God all things are possible.

Differences exist not only in Protestantism. While Catholics may all belong to the same church, they do not necessarily believe the same things. You have liberal Catholics and Taditionalists. You have cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose doctrines and at the extremes you have sedevacanist or others who deny the validity or implementation of Vatican 2…

 

[teachccd]

Well Jude has told us that the faith was once for all handed down. There cannot be new revelation which The Book of Mormon claims to be. In addition, the Mormons insist that there was a total; apostasy until Joseph Smith. This would deny the scriptural promis made by Jesus to the Church, and by this I mean the tru invisible Church, not the visible.

Without the authority of the Church the letter of Jude is no more inspired than the Gospel of Judas. Please don’t cite from a letter that only you claim to be inspired since there is no authoritative Church in your opinion…teachccd

P.S. The Catholic Church acknowledges Peter as our first pope because Jesus gave him the authority and the keys to the Kingdom. You admit Peter’s writings as inspired how??

 

[teachccd]

Differences exist not only in Protestantism. While Catholics may all belong to the same church, they do not necessarily believe the same things. You have liberal Catholics and Taditionalists. You have cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose doctrines and at the extremes you have sedevacanist or others who deny the validity or implementation of Vatican 2…

True. We call those Protestants within the Church…There are essentials by which all Catholics must abide. If they do not then they identify themselves as Catholics in name only. Doctrine must be held in unity with the teachings of Rome. There is room for conservative and liberal expression but ultimately if you do not follow Catholic teachings then you are marginally Catholic at best…teachccd

 

[SyCarl]

Without the authority of the Church the letter of Jude is no more inspired than the Gospel of Judas. Please don’t cite from a letter that only you claim to be inspired since there is no authoritative Church in your opinion…teachccd

P.S. The Catholic Church acknowledges Peter as our first pope because Jesus gave him the authority and the keys to the Kingdom. You admit Peter’s writings as inspired how??

You mistake my position. The Scripture is the only infallible authority. That does not mean the church has no authority at all. Peter’s Epistiles are Scripture because they are written by Peter. The Church may have proposed the canon but when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit convicts you of its inspiration. I have read what are called the Deutercanonicals and don’t get the same conviction. The same with other psedo-apostolic writings. Then there are blatant errors in some books such as Judith where Nebuchadnezzar is said to be King of Assyria, not Babylon

 

[inkaneer]

It is interesting to note what Augustine said about the interpretation of Scripture:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

Augustine was no sola scripturist. He also wrote the following in suppport of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium:

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Sola Scripturists like to “chop quote” Augustine and some of the other early church writers when they write in praise of scripture yet the soal scripturists want to ignore them when they talk in praise of Tradition.

 

[SyCarl]

Augustine was no sola scripturist. He also wrote the following in suppport of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium:

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Sola Scripturists like to “chop quote” Augustine and some of the other early church writers when they write in praise of scripture yet the soal scripturists want to ignore them when they talk in praise of Tradition.

All that shows is that Augustine, like other Church Fathers are not consitent in what they say. That is not a problem for me since I do not believe they are infallible. Incosistencies are more problematic for those who support tradition for all I am asserting is that Reformation ideas were not new to the Reformation, while for tradition I would think consistency is important.

There is also the anachronistic practice of applying the present Catholic idea of tradition anytime the Church Fathers use the word.

 

[inkaneer]

You mistake my position. The Scripture is the only infallible authority. That does not mean the church has no authority at all. Peter’s Epistiles are Scripture because they are written by Peter. The Church may have proposed the canon but when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit convicts you of its inspiration. I have read what are called the Deutercanonicals and don’t get the same conviction. The same with other psedo-apostolic writings. Then there are blatant errors in some books such as Judith where Nebuchadnezzar is said to be King of Assyria, not Babylon

Give me book, chapter and verse on that. For I can show you in scripture that the Apostles did not agree with your position. They claimed inspiration and authority directly from the Holy Spirit without consulting scripture. This was the “power from on high” that Jesus had promised to them.

 

[NotWorthy]

My belief is that the cause of division is the pride of man. God does not tell us everything and there is no reason that he has to. However man in his pride wants to know everything and thinks that he has the right to. To claim greater knowledge he makes assumptions, reasons or draws conclusions about things that God has chosen to leave as mysteries. He fails to consider that if the Bible appears to make contradictory assertions, that they are only contradictory in human terms. What may seem impossible to us is possible for God. Calvinists talk of election and irresistable Grace while others assert freewill. There are passages that can be cited for both positions and inteligent and learned men have argued on both sides. I am prepared to say God has predestined and elected us but still gives us a real choice. How is that possible? I don’t know but I trust that for God all things are possible.

By Jove, Sycarl, I think you’ve got it right so far!!! You ought to quit while you’re ahead, my friend!!!

Differences exist not only in Protestantism. While Catholics may all belong to the same church, they do not necessarily believe the same things. You have liberal Catholics and Taditionalists. You have cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose doctrines and at the extremes you have sedevacanist or others who deny the validity or implementation of Vatican 2…

Ooooh, so close! There’s just one problem with your conclusion. The Catholic Laiety (the liberal and the Traditionalist) are not the authoritative teaching arm of the Church. They can and will believe what they wish, and even act on their beliefs… to the potential detriment of their souls.

Granted, even among the Church Magisterium, there can be differences. But each one can’t teach based on their differences. A good case in point would be our St. Jerome, who thought the Deuterocanonicals shouldn’t be included in His Latin Vulgate. He ended up bowing to the Popes wishes and included them.

With that said, the Oneness of the Catholic Church means that the official Church teaching is the same throughout it’s history throughout its churches.