Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[NotWorthy]

Catholic Tradition is handed down from the Apostles, and comes to us through the writings of those later Catholics who were raised in one Apostolic tradition or another.

There is no “new” Tradition.

Que?

 

[Hellisreal]

I’d be scared if I was you. Very Scared… but, you probably already know that!!!

 

[LSK]

teachccd: Thanks. So, if I understand your idea, you would say that while Scripture is materially sufficient, sufficiency does not necessitate totality. There may be additional revelation found in Tradition that, while not being necessary, is helpful and gives us the full picture.

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

I really like this explanation - and I also think it is important to keep in mind that it is not an either/or proposition when discussing Tradition and Holy Scripture; rather, it is a ‘both/and’ kind of idea that Catholics use when dealing with the whole of Salvation History and the Economy of Salvation.

 

[inkaneer]

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.

No, the question is not about teaching it is about authority. Did the Apostles referred to Scripture for authority or did they claim their own authority. One does not have authority because one is an Apostle. The Apostles received authority at a point in time (Pentecost). I say the Apostles had authority because they were given authority not simply because they were Apostles. Acts chapter one records that authority as residing in an office (the KJV says “bishoprick”) when it describes the passing down of the authority of Judas’ office to Matthias.

 

[jimmy85]

Can a protestan answer me this please?
I dotn understand the link that protestans claim that they have with the church fathers.

The protestans claim to have the same tradition as the church fathers. but the church fathers were bishops and priests n most of protestans denominations dont belive on the prieshood. So how can they have the same traditions that the church fathers had?

catholicismandbibletheology.blog.com/

 

[inkaneer]

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.

That hardly is a ringing endorsement of sola scriptura. The Catholic Church today would agree with Augustine on that one but we are not sola scripturists.

As far as John Chrystostom writing on 2 Thessalonians, I need not remind you what 2 Thessalonians says on the subject of sola scriptura do I? If so here it is:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thessalonians 2:15]

That, because it is the inspired word of God, is immutable and is as good today as it was when Paul first penned it.

 

[PauloFreire2]

The Bible is great, but won’t satisfy all your spiritual needs. And, you might end up worshiping the Bible, instead of God. That’s a fundie tendency.:tsktsk:

 

[jimmy85]

SyCarl;2279185:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thessalonians 2:15]

That, because it is the inspired word of God, is immutable and is as good today as it was when Paul first penned it.

The scriptures n the letter were written mainly because the witnesses that saw Christ were passing away. and
they wanted to keep the tradition.
and they wanted to mantain the union with the churches.
that was the main mission of the scriptures.

 

[jimmy85]

Also every ancient church had the same rites and tradition we can know that from St Irenaeus Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 10, verse 2.)
and on the 4 century I think they started to be call catholic that means universal.

1. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

catholicismandbibletheology.blog.com/

 

[jmcrae]

Also every ancient church had the same rites and tradition we can know that from St Irenaeus Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 10, verse 2.)
and on the 4 century I think they started to be call catholic that means universal.

It became an official title of the Church in 325 AD, but it was in use long before then - in 110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.”

1. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

And they all said, ***Amen!! *** :extrahappy: :dancing: :extrahappy: :dancing:

 

[justasking4]

That’s called “Tradition.”

All that this shows is that there is a history behind the documents of the NT. We should expect that as we do with any document.

Then prove the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew from Sola Scriptura.

Are these “Traditions” considered inspired-inerrant as the Scriptures are?

 

[jmcrae]

What exactly is the process of Tradition? How did the catholic church use Tradition to determine which books of the NT should be in the canon?

They looked first at, “Are these books read out at Mass?” Yes?

Then they looked at what was handed down to them orally through their Catechisms, songs/hymns, poetry, and memorized prayers, and they asked “Does it fit with the oral teaching of the Church?” Yes?

If so, then they also looked at the Apostolic origins of the writings. Was the person who wrote it actually an Apostle? If not, then was he closely associated with the Apostles?

All of this information was available to them from outside of the Scriptures, but it was passed down within the Church itself, from generation to generation.

They didn’t look at the works and say, “Does this book claim to have been inspired by God?” We know they didn’t, because a lot of the books that they didn’t include do claim to have been inspired by God - such as the Gospel According to Thomas, and the Gospel According to Bartholemew, which are the only two that I’ve actually read.

 

[justasking4]

Catholic Tradition is handed down from the Apostles, and comes to us through the writings of those later Catholics who were raised in one Apostolic tradition or another.

There is no “new” Tradition.

 

[Robert_Finch]

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!

Greetings:

One of the main points today concerning sola scriptura from the non-Catholic point of view is that it is sufficient…I

It is quoted incorrectly from II Tim 3:16 KJV " Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. "

Modern non-Catholics have substituted “sufficient” for the word “profitable”. Obviously there is a lot of difference between the two…It is a way in which sola scriptura sounds acceptable…

So can you now see that tradition and profitability of scripture can coincide?

Peace
Robert

 

[NotWorthy]

How are you defining “new”? For example the marian doctrines cannot be found in the NT

 

[jmcrae]

How are you defining “new”? For example the marian doctrines cannot be found in the NT

Read the first two chapters of the Gospel According to Luke - they are all alluded to there - her virginity, her motherhood, that she had grace from God - everything.

and we don’t see anything of any prayers to her until centuries later.

“Centuries”? The Hail Mary prayer is found inscribed on the walls of the Catacombs where the early Christians gathered for Mass. “Decades” at most.

Or take her assumption. This was unknown for centuries and the apostles never make any mention of this.

It is alluded to in the Book of Revelation, in the latter part of chapter 11 and then continuing on into chapter 12. It would not have been mentioned in earlier Scriptures, since she was still alive while they were being written.

 

[justasking4]

The Bible is great, but won’t satisfy all your spiritual needs. And, you might end up worshiping the Bible, instead of God. That’s a fundie tendency.:tsktsk:

Huh? Have you studied the Scriptures much? For example in I Peter 2:2 it is by the Scriptures we grow in respect to Salvation. Or take 2 Timothy 3:14-17 which says –
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Where is the tradition of the catholic church that is inspired-inerrant as the Scriptures are that can do what the Word of God can do? What tradition or practice can it be said to make a man adequate?

 

[jimmy85]

Well see when you see the bible as ultimate authority you are the one that is the ultimate authority n not the bible. It can be inteprated in so many ways. therefore if you interpratate it you are becoming the authority n not the scriptures neither the ancient christian tradition.
suddenly the ancient tradition that was the one that the bible is bases with. Change because we read it and interpratate it ourselves.

catholicismandbibletheology.blog.com/

 

[justasking4]

Read the first two chapters of the Gospel According to Luke

• they are all alluded to there - her virginity, her motherhood, that she had grace from God - everything.
  That’s just the problem. They don’t support for example that she was without sin. Nor does it say anything about praying to her.

"

Centuries"? The Hail Mary prayer is found inscribed on the walls of the Catacombs where the early Christians gathered for Mass. “Decades” at most.

What this is, is speculation. No book in the NT ever teaches that we are to ever pray to her or anyone else except God.
Since the marian dogmas are a major disctinction of the catholic church and they make great claims about her, they need to give clear and solid basis for these doctrines that can be grounded firmly in the Scriptures rather than speculating.

 

[jmcrae]

Huh? Have you studied the Scriptures much?

Yes - every day of my life since I turned five.

For example in I Peter 2:2 it is by the Scriptures we grow in respect to Salvation.

Scripture alone, though, or in the context of the teachings of the Apostles (the Church)?

Or take 2 Timothy 3:14-17 which says –
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Obviously when Timothy was young, he was not reading the Bible as we know it today, because it had not been written down yet. The “sacred writings” that he read during childhood are the Old Testament only. But, St. Paul reminds him that he also learned from a person - most likely his mother (since his father was a pagan).

Where is the tradition of the catholic church that is inspired-inerrant as the Scriptures are that can do what the Word of God can do? What tradition or practice can it be said to make a man adequate?

The Word of God is Jesus - not a book. Not even an inspired and inerrant book about Jesus. Everywhere that we encounter Jesus - at Mass, in Confession, when we pray, and when we read the Bible, we are becoming perfected in Him, and we are being formed by the Word of God.