Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Your response does show that the catholic church has gone beyond the Scriptures with its Traditions that puts at the same level as the Scriptures.

yeah? now you got it! The Catholic Church (notice the caps) does not believe in Sola Scriptura–so your arguments are mute. The Scriptures are not the only thing that is God’s Word. We believe in ‘God’s Word Alone’—but that includes Tradition and Scripture and Magisterium. So there is no argument here. We can’t defend our position using your basis for belief–it is not the same as ours. Now if you want to defend your position of Sola Scriptura—go right ahead but remember this is a Catholic forum and the burden of proof will fall on you. (We have already presented the appropriate apologetics.)

Ravyn

 

[jimmy85]

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.

Well the church fathers did had devotions to the saints.
there was a feast that the ancient church celebrated dedicated to all the saints.

In the early days the Christians were accustomed to solemnize the anniversary of a martyr’s death for Christ at the place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to interchange feasts, to transfer relics, to divide them, and to join in a common feast; as is shown by the invitation of Saint Basil of Caesarea (397) to the bishops of the province of Pontus. Frequently groups of martyrs suffered on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all. The first trace of this we find in Antioch on the Sunday after Pentecost. We also find mention of a common day in a sermon of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (373), and in the 74th homily of Saint John Chrysostom (407).

canticanova.com/articles/ot/artb11.htm

“st Gregory Thaumaturgus” (213; died 270-275).
“On All the Saints”

“Nevertheless the spectacle of the onlookers impels me to speak. Since, then, this solemnity is a glorious one among our festivals, and the spectators form a crowded gathering, and our assembly is one of elevated fervour in the faith, I shall face the task of commencing an address with confidence. And this I may attempt all the more boldly, since the Father requests me, and the Church is with me, and the sainted martyrs with this object strengthen what is weak in me.”

you can read about it on the writtings of st Gregory Thaumaturgus
newadvent.org/fathers/0610.htm

Also there Church Fathers wrote about the saints.

Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
newadvent.org/fathers/3501.htm

Jerome [SAINT] [DOCTOR] newadvent.org/fathers/3003.htm

for more info: newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[richardeekw]

I am having a difficulty in arguing against Sola Scriptura.

the average reader can do so with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

Thanks!

Every Christian / Christian Community claims to read scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; yet as we see today - there are numerous Christian denominations - all claiming to have the CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

It is not so easy my friend.(For the average reader to correctly understand the Bible, without Biblical knowledge of historical facts pertaining to Cultures, and various other sciences involved in the b.c.e., the time Jesus walked on earth, the understanding and thoughts of 1st century Christians etc). That is why we need the AUTHORITY of the Church to guide the lay person in interpreting Sacred Scriptures.

Just watch EWTN interviews with Marcus Grodi and it is quite clear that the many protestants who return to the Catholic Church realized the difficulties in interpreting Sacred Scriptures. It is basically the TRUE PRESENCE (The Eucharist) and the NECESSITY of CHURCH AUTHORITY that led them home to the Roman Catholic Church.

PROFITABLE – NECESSARY – SUFFICIENT

Profitable:
Beneficial, Useful, of value…

What is NECESSARY may not be SUFFICIENT
e.g. Air is necessary for life; but we know that it is not sufficient for living.We need, in addition to air, water, food etc…Therefore if we begin at the premise that the Bible alone is sufficient, then we must look for the verse or verses in the Bible which states that the Bible alone is sufficient

The “Formal” sufficiency of the BibleAll doctrines, interpretation and teachings for Faith, Morals and Salvation are to be found solely in the Bible

Does not deny the “Material” sufficiency of the Bible (When correctly interpreted, all Traditions can be traced to the Bible).

Rule of Faith:
Bible & Tradition.
This is manifested in the living authority of the Catholic Church entrusted with Oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles plus the authority to interpret Scriptures correctly

The Bible alone is not the sole rule of Faith.
Nothing in the Bible suggests this. In fact, the Bible indicates it is not to be taken by itself.

 

[richardeekw]

A very important point I missed (regarding the average reader understanding Sacred Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) is that

The Bible as we have it today in the various languages and in English is not originally so. The English versions are interpretations from the Original Aramaic,Hebrew and Greek texts. Hence the development of language itself over time is itself a roblem: in its interpretation.

 

[NoelFitz]

(The answer to the question he wouldn’t answer is, “We know it was John the Apostle because Tradition tells us so.” In this case, the transmitter of the Tradition is Polycarp, who knew John personally – and may have been the person who received Revelation after John wrote it.)

I am new to this forum.

I am a bit confused.

Is it acceptable for participants in this forum to disagree.

I am not sure John the Apostle wrote Revelation (The Apocalypse). Could John the Seer or the Elder be considered the author?

In the NJBC Adela Yarbro Collins writes “It seems best to conclude that the author was an early Christian prophet by the name of John, otherwise unknown” (p 998).

God bless,

NoelFitz.

 

[jmcrae]

I am new to this forum.

I am a bit confused.

Is it acceptable for participants in this forum to disagree.

I am not sure John the Apostle wrote Revelation (The Apocalypse). Could John the Seer or the Elder be considered the author?

St. Polycarp, who knew him in person, tells us that it is John the Apostle.

In the NJBC Adela Yarbro Collins writes “It seems best to conclude that the author was an early Christian prophet by the name of John, otherwise unknown” (p 998).

This is one of the problems I have with the NJBC. It seems purposely designed to undermine people’s faith. How can we, living 2000 years later, know things that the people who were there in person didn’t notice?

Doesn’t it seem rather mind-boggling that Polycarp, who lived and worked with the Apostle John, and knew what he looked like, where he lived, and things like that, would be wrong about the fact that St. John wrote the Apocalypse? Could someone else who was also named John, have sat down in St. John’s chair, and written a book with his pen and his ink, and nobody noticed at the time that it wasn’t actually the Apostle John?

PS: I “get” that St. John could have had help with the writing.

 

[NoelFitz]

These questions are very difficult.

I do not think faith comes into the discussion

Collins says that the earliest Christian writer to comment on the author of Revelation was Justin Martyr in about 160 AD.

God bless,

Noelfitz.

 

[justasking4]

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

The nature of the Scriptures i.e. being God breathed and inerrant by itself mandates that we believe that there is not higher authority than God’ word. God is the source of the Scriptures and not any church.

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

On the authority of Christ who used the church. Christ is primary.

 

[justasking4]

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.
i agree that there was oral teaching going on while the apostles were alive. However what exactly was it if your have no record of it outside the NT? This is the problem with tradition. Where is the written record of it?

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.

More than half the Bible was in existence before the NT was written. That was done without the church. The Scripures are the product of God Himself and not tradition. Tradition does not nor can it make something inspired or inerrant.

 

[NotWorthy]

On the authority of Christ who used the church. Christ is primary.

Amen !!! Christ guides His Bride, the Catholic Church!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

More than half the Bible was in existence before the NT was written. That was done without the church. The Scripures are the product of God Himself and not tradition. Tradition does not nor can it make something inspired or inerrant.

True, but Tradition help Her sift the wheat from the chaff. For instance, it was generally thought at one time or the other that the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, the Shepherd of Hermes, and several others were inspired. And it was thought at more than one time that Revelation, Hebrews, and Peter’s and John’s Epistles were not inspired.

And I’m not even talking about the reformers!!!

 

[porthos11]

The nature of the Scriptures i.e. being God breathed and inerrant by itself mandates that we believe that there is not higher authority than God’ word. God is the source of the Scriptures and not any church.

But again, which books comprise Scripture?

Keep in mind the context here. Paul is referring to his own “traditions” and not some later traditions that came centuries later.

Oh I see the context all right, and you’re only digging your own grave deeper here. Yes he is referring to his own traditions (paradosis) including oral ones. That means Tradition has been in place in the first century. If it was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for us. This verse shows us simply that Tradition is NOT a bad thing, and is in fact necessary.

Not sure what you mean by this. The church used a criteria to determine which books were inspired and which were not. What you call “tradition” i call reasoning.

I think you exactly what I mean. Yes, the Church used reasoning, but it was their authority that DEFINED the books of the New Testament. THAT is the Tradition.

Again you are only confirming the role of Tradition in the determination of the canon.

I’m not even referring to the Church as the source of these books; only its role in identifying them as inspired.

After studying how the canon was determined with the criteria they used, i think they got it right.

On whose authority do you believe the 27 NT books are inspired Scripture?

On the authority of Christ who used the church. Christ is primary.

See? No matter how much you throw around Sola Scriptura, whenever you quote the Bible, you are implicitly accepting a tradition, a paradosis. The canon of Scripture is itself a tradition, since there is no inspired list of inspired books. All you have is the authority of the Church.

 

[porthos11]

More than half the Bible was in existence before the NT was written. That was done without the church. The Scripures are the product of God Himself and not tradition. Tradition does not nor can it make something inspired or inerrant.

Look, it is a mistake to say that the Church wrote the New Testament; it didn’t. God is the primary author of the Bible using human authors as his instruments.

But without the Church you have no authoritative way of determining which books were inspired, outside of your own opinion. The Church’s determination did not make them inspired; the Church identified them as inspired.

It is on the Church’s authority that you accept the NT as inspired, and only those 27 books. So no matter how much you deny it, you accept at least one Tradition.

 

[NoelFitz]

Sorry, I am new here. I get confused.

Which books are in the Bible? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Jews disagree. I believe the books in the Bible are those claimed by Catholic tradition; i.e. those books that the Church says are in the Bible.

I consider the Bible is not inerrant, only infallible. The cosmos was not made in six days.

God bless,

NoelFitz.

 

[porthos11]

Sorry, I am new here. I get confused.

Which books are in the Bible? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Jews disagree. I believe the books in the Bible are those claimed by Catholic tradition; i.e. those books that the Church says are in the Bible.

I consider the Bible is not inerrant, only infallible. The cosmos was not made in six days.

God bless,

NoelFitz.

Oh the Bible in inerrant, have no doubt about that. It remains inerrant even if the cosmos was not made in 6 days.

Genesis was not written to convey scientific truths, but religious truths. People are free to take the creation stories literally as is, or accept a more gradual creation as theorized by science.

The important thing to believe is that whatever view you hold, God did it.

 

[jmcrae]

The cosmos was not made in six days.

If you read it very carefully and put aside your natural ability to make assumptions, the Bible doesn’t even actually say that the cosmos was made in six days.

All it says is that there is a First Day of Creation, a Second Day of Creation, a Third Day of Creation, etc. There could have been any number of days, weeks, months, years or even millenia in between each of the seven Days of Creation - the Bible doesn’t mention anything about them, one way or the other.

 

[jimmy85]

I think this is important. This is the real point of view of the Church Fathers regarding Sola Scripture, from the “Instruction on the Study of the Fathers of the Church in the Formation of Priest” n 28,3.

If you want to download it you can find it here: usccb.org/vocations/formdocuments.shtml

1. The veneration and fidelity of the father regarding the sacred books may be compared to their veneration and fidelity to tradition. They do not consider themselves masters, but servants of the Sacred Scriptures since they received them from the church, Read and commented on them in and for the church according to the rule of faith proposed and illustrated by ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition. St. Irenaeus, the great lover of the sacred books, maintains that whoever wishes to know the true must look at the tradition of the apostles. 29 He adds that even if the apostles had not left us the Scriptures, tradition would have been enough for our instruction and salvation. 30
   Origen himself, who studied the Scriptures with so much love and passion and worked so much for their comprehension, openly states that only those must be believed as truths of faith that in no way depart from “ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”. 31
   thereby making tradition the interpretative norm of Scripture. Later, St. Augustine, who found his “delight” in meditation on Scripture, 32 stated this marvelously luminous and sound principle that again refers to tradition: “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church had not led me to do so” 33.

 

[NoelFitz]

Perhaps I do not know the difference between inerrancy and infallibility.

I consider inerrancy a fundamental Protestant idea where the literal meaning is taken, while infallibility refers to the concept e.g. God created the world.

Nowadays traditions often seem incorrect. I will give a few examples.

1. Matthew’s gospel is now not considered the first one, in disagreement with St. Augustine.
2. The Clement in Phil 4:3 is now not considered the author of 1 Clement.
3. Paul’s one-time companion Barnabas is now not considered the author of the Letter carrying his name.
4. Paul is often not considered the author of the Pastoral Letters.

The list goes on.

 

[NotWorthy]

Perhaps I do not know the difference between inerrancy and infallibility.

I consider inerrancy a fundamental Protestant idea where the literal meaning is taken, while infallibility refers to the concept e.g. God created the world.

Nowadays traditions often seem incorrect. I will give a few examples.

1. Matthew’s gospel is now not considered the first one, in disagreement with St. Augustine.

2. The Clement in Phil 4:3 is now not considered the author of 1 Clement.

3. Paul’s one-time companion Barnabas is now not considered the author of the Letter carrying his name.
4. Paul is often not considered the author of the Pastoral Letters.

The list goes on.

Think of the difference in innerrancy and infallibility as allows.

If I took a math test with a 100 questions:
If I was inerrant, I’d have to get all 100 questions correct. (OK, looking at the next post by jmcrae, it would be better phrased “if my test was inerrant…”)
If I was infallible, only the questions that I answered have to be correct. If I skipped 20 questions, but got the remaining 80 correct, I’d be infallible, but not inerrant.

I’m not sure what you are getting at on your four posts. Does the NT say the Matthew is the first Gospel, or the Clement in Phil. 4:3 wrote 1 Clement? In regards to Paul, this is not uncommon among ancient writings (for instance, the wisdom of Solomon was not written by Solomon), but I don’t see that the subject of authorship is at question in any of Paul’s Epistles, except for the unknown author of Hebrews.

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps I do not know the difference between inerrancy and infallibility.

“Inerrant” is an adjective that refers to something that contains no important errors. The bible is inerrant because it contains no important errors, but it cannot be infallible, because it isn’t a person.

“Infallible” is an adjective that refers to a person who will not make a mistake in the future, or is not making a mistake right now. Under certain circumstances (not all) the Pope is infallible. The Magesterium of the Church (the entire teaching body of the Church) is infallible when they all agree - this of course includes the Pope.

Think of the difference in innerrancy and infallibility as allows.

If I took a math test with a 100 questions:
If I was inerrant, I’d have to get all 100 questions correct.
If I was infallible, only the questions that I answered have to be correct. If I skipped 20 questions, but got the remaining 80 correct, I’d be infallible, but not inerrant.

This is an excellent illustration of the concept.