Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[SyCarl]

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.

The Apostles had authority simply because they were Apostles. The question is how can it be shown that they passed on any inspired teaching that was not eventually put into Scripture.

 

[SyCarl]

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

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.

It is not just the laity. Is there not something like the Society of St. Pius X, which to a large degree doesn’t accept full Papal authority? Have not bishops appointed other bishops without authority? I am thinking of Archbishop Lefebrve

 

[NotWorthy]

It is not just the laity. Is there not something like the Society of St. Pius X, which to a large degree doesn’t accept full Papal authority? Have not bishops appointed other bishops without authority? I am thinking of Archbishop Lefebrve

Yes, they have broken away. The point is, these guys do not have the authority to reject the Pope. To equate this small sect with the 100’s of Protestant religions (I know there aren’t 33,000, but there’s still too many) is going a little bit on a limb, wouldn’t you say?

 

[porthos11]

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.

Let’s humor you. Let’s not make that assumption that the Church is infallible. It could be wrong for all I care.

That leaves us with Bible alone. Sola Scriptura.

So now, how are we to know that those 66 books are those inspired by God?

 

[Hellisreal]

Augustine:

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

It seems that both Augustine and Irenaeus did not approve of sola scriptura.

 

[porthos11]

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 Mormons make the same claim of their Book of Mormon. They are also “convicted.”

Catholics are likewise “convicted” when reading the Deuterocanonicals.

Muslims are “convicted” when they read the Koran.

What makes you right and them wrong? You are essentially asking us to accept your authority.

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

Just as there are blatant errors in the New Testament. David for example went to Abimelech the High Priest, not Abiathar, who wasn’t high priest at the time of Saul.

Unless you take into consideration a simple literary concept known as “genre.”

Essentially you are asking people to rely on feelings of “conviction”, or rather, YOUR feelings of conviction.

Why should we even believe you?

 

[inkaneer]

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.

So where is the inconsistency? Augustine praises scripture in one writing. In another he praises Sacred Tradition. The only way he would be inconsistent is to praise scripture and denounce tradition in one writing while praising Sacred Tradition in another. There is no inconsistency in what Augustine writes nor any of the other early church fathers. They are not infalible and no one claims that they are. Their writings are their testimony of the beliefs of the church in their time. Remember that Augustine wrote at least 1100 years before sola scriptura was invented. Augustine and the other early church writers fought the heresies of their day. They did not fight sola scriptura because it would be over a thousand years before it would raise its ugly head.

 

[SyCarl]

So where is the inconsistency? Augustine praises scripture in one writing. In another he praises Sacred Tradition. The only way he would be inconsistent is to praise scripture and denounce tradition in one writing while praising Sacred Tradition in another. There is no inconsistency in what Augustine writes nor any of the other early church fathers. They are not infalible and no one claims that they are. Their writings are their testimony of the beliefs of the church in their time. Remember that Augustine wrote at least 1100 years before sola scriptura was invented. Augustine and the other early church writers fought the heresies of their day. They did not fight sola scriptura because it would be over a thousand years before it would raise its ugly head.

I previously cited a quote from Augustine in which he said all that matter concerning faith and manner of life are plainly set out in Scripture. That is the essence of scripture alone. If he then says that other things are required then that is inconsistent.

Similarly other Church Fathers also seem to be somewhat inconsistent. For example, John Chrysostom. He says

“All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)

As well he says:

“‘That the man of God may be perfect.’ For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!” (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)

He tells us that if we would learn anything we can do it from Scripture and that the Scripture are clear and open with all the necessary things being plain. That sounds very much like Scripture Alone.
It is true that he also wrote the following:

Ver. 15. “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also 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. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.
(Homilies on Second Thessalonians 4 v.15)

He is saying that we can learn anything from Scripture, which we have in place of the Apostle, but he then says that many things are unwritten. He is inconsistent, but that does not detract from the fact that he set out a statement akin to scripture alone well before the Reformation. Which did he truly hold when he states both?

 

[jmcrae]

He is saying that we can learn anything from Scripture, which we have in place of the Apostle, but he then says that many things are unwritten. He is inconsistent, but that does not detract from the fact that he set out a statement akin to scripture alone well before the Reformation. Which did he truly hold when he states both?

The more important question is, on what grounds do you believe some of what he says, but not the rest of it? How do you “know” that he is “right” in the one thing, and “wrong” in the other? What essential assumptions are you making, that cause you to see his statements as being “inconsistent” with each other?

What standard are you measuring him by? The teachings of the Baptist Church? (Which didn’t even exist until the late 1600s.) If so, then what (or who) gives the Baptists authority to make this decision? (What makes the Baptist viewpoint more credible than other viewpoints?)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have seen this claim about the catholic “but reserves authoritative interpretation to itself” but have never seen such a work. Would you happen to know where this interpretative work on the scriptures can be found?

It isn’t a “work.” It’s the Magisterium, the Church’s teaching authority. The Church interprets authoritatively only when necessary – for example, those texts making marriage a sacremant and forbidding divorce, the texts establishing the Eucharist, and so on.

Beyond that, Catholics are free to make their own interpretations within broad limits – but not to impose those interpretations on others.

 

[SyCarl]

The more important question is, on what grounds do you believe some of what he says, but not the rest of it? How do you “know” that he is “right” in the one thing, and “wrong” in the other? What essential assumptions are you making, that cause you to see his statements as being “inconsistent” with each other?

What standard are you measuring him by? The teachings of the Baptist Church? (Which didn’t even exist until the late 1600s.) If so, then what (or who) gives the Baptists authority to make this decision? (What makes the Baptist viewpoint more credible than other viewpoints?)

I am not a Baptist. I am not measuring him. I recognize that he, like the other Church Fathers, is not infallible. I cite him not to show the truth of what he says, but to note there were expressions of scripture alone before the Reformation. Most Catholics claim that there were none, but there are examples in the Church Fathers even if they may contradict themselves.

 

[Hellisreal]

I am not a Baptist. I am not measuring him. I recognize that he, like the other Church Fathers, is not infallible. I cite him not to show the truth of what he says, but to note there were expressions of scripture alone before the Reformation. Most Catholics claim that there were none, but there are examples in the Church Fathers even if they may contradict themselves.

I see no contradiction. I see someone trying to find one that does not exist.

The Church Fathers could have easily pulled a Martin Luther if they had indeed felt the way you are implying they did (which, I have already shown they did not) or you may have to actually stop reading into their writings using your own personal interpretation and reading into what they said, ignoring what the message was, who it was intended for, in context.

 

[jmcrae]

I am not a Baptist.

Okay.

I am not measuring him.

Yes, you are. You’re deciding which of his statements are “true” and which of his statements are “false.”

I’m asking you, on what basis (by what authority) are you making this judgement?

I recognize that he, like the other Church Fathers, is not infallible. I cite him not to show the truth of what he says, but to note there were expressions of scripture alone before the Reformation.

He made statements that can be pulled out of their context and interepreted that way by people who assume that “scripture alone” is possible. (This idea did not exist in the world until the time of Martin Luther - the Early Fathers could not have thought of such a thing.)

Most Catholics claim that there were none, but there are examples in the Church Fathers even if they may contradict themselves.

They don’t contradict themselves. Rather, they are beginning with different basic assumptions than you are. One of their basic assumptions is that the Church always interprets the Scriptures; they cannot be used all by themselves.

It could not have ever occurred to them that some day, a non-Christian or a heretic might pick up a Bible and read it all by himself, and create a religion out of it without reference to the authority of the Catholic Church, because in those days, Bibles were kept in Churches, and they were read out in the context of the Church’s liturgies - the Mass, the Divine Office, etc.

 

[SyCarl]

I see no contradiction. I see someone trying to find one that does not exist.

The Church Fathers could have easily pulled a Martin Luther if they had indeed felt the way you are implying they did (which, I have already shown they did not) or you may have to actually stop reading into their writings using your own personal interpretation and reading into what they said, ignoring what the message was, who it was intended for, in context.

They had no reason to “pull a Martin Luther”. I am not implying that they were dissatisfied with the Church at the time.
I do not really think that there is much personal interpretation when the statement says

Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them.

Now how am I interpretting this wrong. He says that we have the Scriptures in place of Paul. How could this be interpretted differently? He says if you want to learn anything you can learn it from them. How am I misinterpretting this?

With respect to context, it is a homily on 2 Timothy where he is explicitly looking a Paul’s statements with respect to Scripture. (strange how he seems to say the same things as the Reformers about it). Audience? It is a homily. Aren’t those the teachings on the Scripture during a Mass? So wouldn’t his audience or the intended audience be the members of a congregation ie the laity?

 

[SyCarl]

Okay.

Yes, you are. You’re deciding which of his statements are “true” and which of his statements are “false.”

I’m asking you, on what basis (by what authority) are you making this judgement?

He made statements that can be pulled out of their context and interepreted that way by people who assume that “scripture alone” is possible. (This idea did not exist in the world until the time of Martin Luther - the Early Fathers could not have thought of such a thing.)

They don’t contradict themselves. Rather, they are beginning with different basic assumptions than you are. One of their basic assumptions is that the Church always interprets the Scriptures; they cannot be used all by themselves.

It could not have ever occurred to them that some day, a non-Christian or a heretic might pick up a Bible and read it all by himself, and create a religion out of it without reference to the authority of the Catholic Church, because in those days, Bibles were kept in Churches, and they were read out in the context of the Church’s liturgies - the Mass, the Divine Office, etc.

I am not saying anything about the truth of his statements, just that he made them.

Are you not assuming his assumptions. I am looking at someone who is doing a series of homilies on a book of the Bible. He is telling his audience that if they want to learn anything they can from the Bible. I am taking his words at face value. I am not reading into them a preconceived notion because I also quoted his statement on tradition from 2 Thessalonians. He says what he says. I don’t think that I am twisting or forcing anything.

On the other hand, I believe that you are doing just that. The Church says no one said anything like scripture alone before the Reformation so Chrysostom must not be saying it. Just exactly what is he saying in the quote?

Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!"

 

[jmcrae]

I am not saying anything about the truth of his statements, just that he made them.

Are you not assuming his assumptions. I am looking at someone who is doing a series of homilies on a book of the Bible. He is telling his audience that if they want to learn anything they can from the Bible.

He is telling them that if they want to learn what St. Paul taught, they can read it in St. Paul’s letters. (St. Paul himself is up in Heaven. His works now speak for him. Not for the whole Church, though - only for himself.)

He is not saying that the be-all/end-all of Christianity is found in Paul’s letters, or in what would some day become the Bible. Christianity is found in the Church - as are the writings of Paul, which are a subset of the teachings of the Church - but they are not the entire thing, and he is not saying that they are the entire thing.

 

[SyCarl]

He is telling them that if they want to learn what St. Paul taught, they can read it in St. Paul’s letters. (St. Paul himself is up in Heaven. His works now speak for him. Not for the whole Church, though - only for himself.)

He is not saying that the be-all/end-all of Christianity is found in Paul’s letters, or in what would some day become the Bible. Christianity is found in the Church - as are the writings of Paul, which are a subset of the teachings of the Church - but they are not the entire thing, and he is not saying that they are the entire thing.

You must take Chrysostom in the context in which he is speaking. He is not speaking of just Paul’s letters but both the Old and the New Testament, the Old Testament being those which Timothy had known from childhood.

“Knowing that from a child you have known the sacred writings.” The holy Scriptures he calls “sacred writings.” In these you were nurtured, so that through them your faith ought to be firm and unshaken. For the root was laid deep, and nourished by length of time, nor will anything subvert it.

And speaking of the holy Scriptures, he has added, “Which are able to make you wise,” that is, they will not suffer you to have any foolish feeling, such as most men have. For he who knows the Scriptures as he ought, is not offended at anything that happens; he endures all things manfully, referring them partly to faith, and to the incomprehensible nature of the divine dispensation, and partly knowing reasons for them, and finding examples in the Scriptures. …If the Old Covenant is light, what is the New, which contains so many, and so great revelations? …“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, “From a child you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (Homilies on 2 Timothy 8 & 9)

Then follows the portion I previously quoted.

For doctrine." For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!

“Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”; not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.”

emphasis added

So looking at the entire context, he is indeed speaking of the whole Scripture, not just Paul’s letters. And from these if you would learn anything you can learn it from them.
By the way, I am taking my quotes from the Church Fathers section at the New Advent website.

 

[Hellisreal]

I can’t imagine seperating the bible from the Church. The Church is a supernatural thing, as the bible is. The bible, while written by man is not a purely human thing, made up by humans alone.
Just as Jesus was not purely just man or purely just divine. He is fully divine and fully man.
For the bible to be limited to use outside of the Community- in individual hands and thinking full understanding will accompany someone while ignoring the living Church, would be self defeating and missing the point of how God has always had people in authority to guide the flock in all matters. To say otherwise is to make a false idol of the bible.

 

[jmcrae]

So looking at the entire context, he is indeed speaking of the whole Scripture, not just Paul’s letters. And from these if you would learn anything you can learn it from them.
By the way, I am taking my quotes from the Church Fathers section at the New Advent website.

Sorry, I am still not seeing “Scripture Alone” here.

St. Timothy knew the teachings of the Church; he wasn’t starting from ground zero. He was reading the Scriptures in the light of the Church’s teachings, which he had already been taught by word of mouth through his Catechism. He would find evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrines of the Church because he had already been exposed to the doctrines of the Church, and he would find examples that illustrate the Church’s moral teachings in the Scriptures, because he already knew what the moral teachings were.

Yes, the Scriptures are really important. Nobody in the Catholic Church has ever said that they are not important.

St Chrysostom was giving a homily about them, rather than sending everyone home to read the Bible by themselves, because the Catholic Bishops are also very important.

 

[SyCarl]

The church is not without authority. Protestants believe that the institutional church does have authority but that it is subject to the Bible. So we have theological schools, ministers, elders and such but we must constantly be searching the Scriptures as the Bereans did to see if these things are so. Church authorities are not infallible. God has always had someone in authority? Who was it at the time of Jesus? The scribes and the Pharisees? We know how Jesus spoke of them. They did not appear to have lead the people correctly.