Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

[NoelFitz]

NotWorthy

Many thanks for your very helpful reply.

You wrote: I’m not sure what you are getting at on your four posts.

The point I was getting at here is that tradition may be incorrect.

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy

Many thanks for your very helpful reply.

You wrote: I’m not sure what you are getting at on your four posts.

The point I was getting at here is that tradition may be incorrect.

Well sure, tradition may be incorrect. But don’t confuse tradition (little “t”) with Tradition (big “T”).

Our traditions (“t”) are not considered inerrant, whereas our Traditions are. For instance, whether or not John wrote Revelation is irrelevant (this is tradition). The Holy Spirit did inspire the author(s) to write Revelation, making it Sacred Scripture (This is Tradition).

 

[NoelFitz]

Jmcrae

I am very grateful for your reply.

I see no entry for inerrant in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I thought the distinction between* inspirens per se* and* per accidens* resolved the problem (St Thomas).

I had considered that the Church, the mystical body of Christ, the people of God, is not a person, yet it is infallible.

When I was in school, a million years ago, I learned that both the Pope and the Church are infallible.

The supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)).

However the CCC says *Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals (890). The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium (891). *

This is in agreement with your post.

I note:

*1. The term “inerrancy” is rarely used by Roman Catholics or by Eastern Orthodox churches. However, the concept of inerrancy is present in many of their beliefs about the Bible (religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm)
*
2. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details and of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts is completely true and without error.
And
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church considers some teachings of the Church, such as solemn definitions issued by an Ecumenical council or the Pope, to be infallible in the sense that they are preserved from error. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy))

A site gives, which I think is accurate gives:

From 1960 to the present, they are based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by Protestants, and they are relatively free of dogmatic bias — but they include notes which discourage the reader from regarding the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. bible-researcher.com/cath-intro.html

The very expert replies I have received in CA have encouraged me to llook at the www, and thus has deepened my understanding, or confused me, more.

A priest in our parish said that for every difficult question there is a simple answer that is usually wrong.

Tricky!

I need to think more.

 

[NotWorthy]

Most Protestants are aware of the fact that for centuries the Roman Catholic Church discouraged laymen from studying the Scriptures independently.

Are you sure this site is quite accurate?

Although I did like the way he addressed Gen. 3:15, understanding that Catholics see this as Jesus crushing the Serpent, I’m not sure if he’s entirely accurate in his portrayal of Catholic Bible Theologians.

 

[justasking4]

Yes - every day of my life since I turned five.
Is the Bible the word of God?

 

[justasking4]

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.

i agree

But without the Church you have no authoritative way of determining which books were inspired, outside of your own opinion.

Sometimes traditions can be right. What you call Tradition here is what i call historical research.

 

[NotWorthy]

Is the Bible the word of God?

Why of course it is? Is the Bible the ONLY word of God.

 

[justasking4]

But again, which books comprise Scripture?

we have 39 in the OT and 27 in the new

QUOTE]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.

That depends on the specific tradition or teaching your are talking about.

I think you exactly what I mean.

I don’t. i want to know exactly how you are using this term so that i don’t misunderstand you.

Yes, the Church used reasoning, but it was their authority that DEFINED the books of the New Testament. THAT is the Tradition./

The caon does not rest on the authority of any church but on the power of God. God used men in the church to discover the canon. They were but the instrument. The authority of the church cannot make a book inspired or inerrant.

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

I look at this as a histoical process that the church used.

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

That’s all the church could do. It had no power to make these books inspired. Nor does its authority make them inspired.

See? No matter how much you throw around Sola Scriptura, whenever you quote the Bible, you are implicitly accepting a tradition, a paradosis.

What is your definition of sola scriptura?

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.

Not so. The inspired Scriptures are not dependent on their inspiration on the authority of any church but on God Himself. As i’ve said above, the church was an instrument that God used. The instrument itself (the church) is fallible and fallen while the Scriptures are not.

 

[justasking4]

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.

 

[justasking4]

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.

 

[justasking4]

Why of course it is? Is the Bible the ONLY word of God.

I have had a number of people here tell me that Jesus is the Word of God. How would you respond to that?

 

[justasking4]

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.

 

[NotWorthy]

I have had a number of people here tell me that Jesus is the Word of God. How would you respond to that?

Amen!!! In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God!!! (Paraphrasing)

He is the Logos!

 

[NotWorthy]

justasking4:

How can something be infallible but not inerrant? If something is infallible that means its incapable of making any mistakes while inerrancy means there is no mistakes.

There is a difference. If I take a math test and there are 100 questions on it.

If I’m inerrant, I have to get all 100 questions right.
If I’m infallible, I only have to get the answers right that I try on. If I skip 20 of the questions because I don’t know the answer, but I still get the remaining 80 correct, I’m still infallible, but not inerrant.

 

[jmcrae]

Is the Bible the word of God?

The person of Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

The Scriptures are a record of His sayings and actions here in the world, and of our continuing relationship with Him. The reality of our collective relationship with Christ is the only reason that the Scriptures are important.

Without the reality of Jesus Christ, the Scriptures are just another book, among billions of books.

 

[ironchef]

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!

hi, read the last paragraph in revelations. it says that if anyone adds to the words in this book, God will add the plauges written in this book to him. Jesus said to call no man Father. but the Church recommends we call every child molesting priest Father. it seems that our Holy Church recommends we do everything that the bible tells us not to do.

 

[ironchef]

justasking4:
the Catholic Church is infallable.everything she has decreed is true and unchanging. the Church outlawed the private use of bibles in the dark ages. anyone caught reading one or owning one was tortured and or killed. anyone who doesnt join the Catholic religion should be put to death, which is what Catholic laws says. its in the canons still to this day.we should get back to the good old days of inquisitions. because our beloved Catholic Church is infallable.lets pray to some statues everyone. thanks for your time

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

hi, read the last paragraph in revelations. it says that if anyone adds to the words in this book, God will add the plauges written in this book to him. Jesus said to call no man Father. but the Church recommends we call every child molesting priest Father. it seems that our Holy Church recommends we do everything that the bible tells us not to do.

first of all it is one revelation. and when this book was written it was atleast 200 years before the Bible was first put together in any kind of combined canon of scripture so the particular writing you are referring to could not possibly have referred to more than the one book of Revelation. And it you want to use this as a guide—then where do the Protestants stand for throwing out 6 books?

Ravyn

 

[jmcrae]

“Ironchef”

Your profile claims that you are Catholic, but you don’t seem to be giving good Catholic answers. You seem to be very bitter and angry about something.

 

[jimmy85]

Ironchef is a protestans
man try to be more polite u r representing the protestans and not the catholics.