Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[jimmy85]

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.

Do u know that the first christian prayed to saints n to Mary?
the otehr day I found this prayer of st Joseph that is 1900 years old.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

We are not to worship anyone but God. We pray to each other all the time. I am praying to you right this minute. (Communicating in a manner that is not face to face.)

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.

We are not the ones who are speculating. We know for a fact that this stuff is historical.

When the Protestants cut themselves off from the history of the Church, they were the ones who had to start speculating about what happened between the end of the book of Acts and the start of their own history in 1517 AD.

You also said,

Originally Posted by jmcrae
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.

“Full of grace” means “without sin.”

"

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

This really doesn’t help. Just because something is written on wall doesn’t mean it was the practice of the entire church. If anything it shows that this person who wrote this was not well grounded in the scriptures.

Better grounded than you, obviously. Did you actually open and read the first two chapters of the Gospel According to Luke, like I asked you to? In there, you will find the first two parts of the Hail Mary prayer. (HINT: it’s Luke 1:28, and then Luke 1:42.)

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

While I understand that the questions asked have led to a discussion about Mary, please return to the particular topic of “Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition” or this thread will be closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Janet_S]

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!

Tradition is what we need to properly understand Scripture.

Mark Shea, in his book By What Authority, describes the relationship between Scripture and Tradition this way:

He describes Scripture as the Light,
while Tradition is the Lens through which the Light is focused:

Indeed, as I looked at it, I began to realize that the total prolife paradosis was Scripture and tradition together; distinct, yet an organic unity like the head and the heart, the right hand and the left. The Scripture gave light, but a very scattered light on this most crucial of issues. The tradition acted like a lens bringing that dancing light into focus. Tradition without Scripture was a darkened lens without a light; but likewise, Scripture without tradition was, on this vital issue, a blurry, unfocused light without a lens.

You can read Chapter 6 of his book here:
mark-shea.com/6.html

 

[Janet_S]

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965,

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

1. 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. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
2. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[justasking4]

Do u know that the first christian prayed to saints n to Mary?

the otehr day I found this prayer of st Joseph that is 1900 years old.

If this is true all it does is show that someone prayed to Mary. That does not mean its right or that the church taught such a thing. The Scriptures certainly do not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If this is true all it does is show that someone prayed to Mary. That does not mean its right or that the church taught such a thing. The Scriptures certainly do not.

Which is why Sacred Tradition is so important – they provide us a window into Early Christianity, and allow us to see and understand the practices and beliefs of those who knew the Apostles personally, and were not limited to the short accounts we now have in the New Testament.

As John said, if everything were written down, “I do not think there would be enough books in the world.”

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

If this is true all it does is show that someone prayed to Mary. That does not mean its right or that the church taught such a thing. The Scriptures certainly do not.

the scriptures do not need to. Catholics believe in God’s Word Alone—but God’s Word includes more than just the scriptures! The Bible came from the Church not the Church from the Bible! here is a conversation someone gave me from some apologetics site that is very easy to understand:

Q: My Protestant friends say that their church goes by the Bible Alone, but that the Catholic Church has added a lot of man-made traditions to the Word of God…is that true?
A: No, it is not true. Protestants have as their sole rule of faith the written Word of God, which we find in Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church has as its sole rule of faith, the entire Word of God, as it is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
All of the Word of God was at one time passed on orally…Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down…this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about “tradition”:
2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.
1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture.
In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Ravyn

 

[vern_humphrey]

Christianity is what it was. Once the Apostles passed away, General Revelation ended. We believe what the earliest Christians believed – and much of that is revealed in Tradition.

And, as I have said earlier, the New Testament itself is a product of Tradition. No Tradition, no New Testament.

 

[justasking4]

We are not to worship

anyone but God. We pray to each other all the time. I am praying to you right this minute. (Communicating in a manner that is not face to face.)
Prayer is a form of worship. Praying for another living person is not communicating with that person. The problem with praying to someone who has died is not taught in scripture. You also have no way of knowing that the person you are praying to can hear your prayers. You have no way of knowing their condition in the after life.

We

Yes. I’m very familar with the scriptures. No where will you find such a potrait of Mary and the claims made of Mary by the catholic church in the scriptures. It is true that she was blessed in being the mother of Jesus. However, it does not follow from that nor is it taught in the NT that Mary was immaculate concieved, without sin, assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, being prayed to etc. There is not one verse in the entire scripture that supports any of this.

 

[justasking4]

the scriptures do not need to. Catholics believe in God’s Word Alone—but God’s Word includes more than just the scriptures!

One of the characteristics of the Word is that it is inspired and inerrant. What teaching in the catholic church is inerrant and inspired? Can you give me a couple of examples?

The Bible came from the Church not the Church from the Bible!

 

[justasking4]

here is a conversation someone gave me from some apologetics site that is very easy to understand:

Quote:

Q: My Protestant friends say that their church goes by the Bible Alone, but that the Catholic Church has added a lot of man-made traditions to the Word of God…is that true?
A: No, it is not true. Protestants have as their sole rule of faith the written Word of God, which we find in Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church has as its sole rule of faith, the entire Word of God, as it is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

What “Traditions” was Paul referring to here since they were not written down in Scripture?
Was he referring to Traditions such as praying to saints, the rosary, indulgences, penance etc?

[/QUOTE]

 

[porthos11]

Yes. I’m very familar with the scriptures. No where will you find such a potrait of Mary and the claims made of Mary by the catholic church in the scriptures. It is true that she was blessed in being the mother of Jesus. However, it does not follow from that nor is it taught in the NT that Mary was immaculate concieved, without sin, assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, being prayed to etc. There is not one verse in the entire scripture that supports any of this.

But there is not one verse that contradicts any of it either.

But following your logic, there is not one verse that says everything must be found in the Bible to be believed.

 

[justasking4]

Which is why Sacred Tradition is so important – they provide us a window into Early Christianity, and allow us to see and understand the practices and beliefs of those who knew the Apostles personally, and were not limited to the short accounts we now have in the New Testament.

Where is the support for these “Traditions” that elevates them to the same level as the God-breathed Scriptures?

Take for example pope Pius the 12th that declared that Mary was assumed into heaven. There is absolutely no evidence in the NT or in histroy for this event. Since there isn’t, its specualtion.

As John said, if everything were written down, “I do not think there would be enough books in the world.”

What is the context for this? John is referring to the life and minsitry of Christ and not to anything else.

 

[justasking4]

While I understand that the questions asked have led to a discussion about Mary, please return to the particular topic of “Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition” or this thread will be closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

In this dicsussion on this topic i thought it was important to be specific with examples of the various traditions and beliefs of the catholic church. Tradition has a lot to do with these particular doctrines and these examples help to take the discussion out of the realm of the abstract to concrete examples of what traditon looks like.

 

[justasking4]

But there is not one verse that contradicts any of it either.

Not so. Take her claim to be sinless. This contadicts Romans 3:23 for example.

But following your logic, there is not one verse that says everything must be found in the Bible to be believed.

I agree. Not everything to be beleived is found in the scriptures. However, those things that are not, are not binding on Christians. Only the Scriptures have authority over the believer since it is them alone that are inspired-inerrant.

 

[porthos11]

I agree. Not everything to be beleived is found in the scriptures. However, those things that are not, are not binding on Christians. Only the Scriptures have authority over the believer since it is them alone that are inspired-inerrant.

There’s nothing in the Scriptures that says that either.

Paul told his Thessalonian readers to hold fast to his own oral traditions too. “Hold fast” is binding.

Without Tradition I wouldn’t even know which books comprise “Scripture”, especially the New Testament.

How about you? How do you know which books comprise the New Testament? On whose authority do you believe the 27 NT books are inspired Scripture?

 

[Ignatius]

Where does he say anything about having authority?

Jesus did. Jesus said, “whoever hears you hears me”, and “whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. You can’t get more authority than that.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus did. Jesus said, “whoever hears you hears me”, and “whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. You can’t get more authority than that.

Don’t forget, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is the context for this? John is referring to the life and ministry of Christ and not to anything else.

Wow! How about that!

Yes, John was referring to the life and ministry of Christ. And he said not all of it was written down! Therefore that which was not written was orally transmitted. And that oral transmission is what we call Sacred Tradition.

We are able through the writings of early Christians to see what they received orally from the Apostles – for example, the Catholic Mass is described by Saint Justin in his First Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius – and we keep to the same practice today.

We oppose abortion because the Didache denounced it, and by Tertullian’s time, he was able to dismiss charges that Christians killed and eat babies at Mass by saying “everyone knows we do not kill children, even in the womb.”

We compiled the Bible from a great mass of Christian writings by following Tradition. The Bible itself is a produce of Sacred Tradition.