Simple and babe like truth : Scriptural sufficiency

[De_Maria]

If you look at the context where he mentions the Lord’s supper he is not telling us its a “Mass” but giving instructions in how they are to come together and the significance of the Lord’s supper.

Yes it is. The term “Mass” comes from the Latin “Misse” to send. We are sent to proclaim the Lord’s death until He come.

If you read carefully what you have written below Scripture and Tradition are not the same things.

"***80 ***“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

Yes, they are. They are both the Word of God. Scripture says so:

1 Thessalonians 2
13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

Therefore, the Word of God is passed on by Word as well as Scripture. Tradition means to “pass on”. Therefore, the Traditions by Word and Epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[mark_a]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. We do not suggest that everything Christ ever said or did is recorded in Scripture. It is not an encyclopedia of all information, or even all spiritual information. Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose. This is best illustrated at the end of John:And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).See how simple this is?

Is everything written down? Nope. Of course not.

But what we do have written down is written for what? That we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing have life in His name!

I’ve also heard complaints that this verse only point to the Gospel of John. However, if you just think for a moment, you will see that if this statement only points to John, it proves too much! For if what we have written in the Gospel of John alone is able to do what John says (v.31), imagine what the ENTIRE DESPOSIT of Scripture would be able to do! If this single book is sufficient to do what John says it can do (the lesser), surely the whole record of Scripture can do even more (the greater).

So if you deny the Scripture is able to do what John says it can do (whether his Gospel alone or by extension the whole Scripture deposit), you are contending with God, not us.

Why is the bible not sufficient for Protestants when God commands “be fruitful and multiply”?

Why is Onan’s sin of not fulfilling his obligation simply overlooked by Protestants? It is the elephant in the room!

Why is the Catholic Church the only church to hold fast to the teachings passed down about artificial birth control?

You are quite simply straining the gnat and swallowing the camel by proclaiming to be your own authority.

“My personal interpretation of the bible alone” leads to errors.

A certain couple of common ancestors of all of us thought they could also decide for themselves.

Turn away from error now before its too late!

 

[justasking4]

mark a;3115797]Why is the bible not sufficient for Protestants when God commands “be fruitful and multiply”?

What is the context for this verse? To whom is God speaking to?

Why is Onan’s sin of not fulfilling his obligation simply overlooked by Protestants? It is the elephant in the room!

Overlooked in what way?

Why is the Catholic Church the only church to hold fast to the teachings passed down about artificial birth control?

Passed down from where?

You are quite simply straining the gnat and swallowing the camel by proclaiming to be your own authority.

Huh? Who gave you the authority to defend the catholic church?

“My personal interpretation of the bible alone” leads to errors.

It can sometimes but not always.

A certain couple of common ancestors of all of us thought they could also decide for themselves.

Thats still true with catholics and protestants.

Turn away from error now before its too late!

Thats what i’m telling catholics but they resist so much.

 

[mark_a]

What is the context for this verse? To whom is God speaking to?

Overlooked in what way?

Passed down from where?

Huh? Who gave you the authority to defend the catholic church?

It can sometimes but not always.

Thats still true with catholics and protestants.

Thats what i’m telling catholics but they resist so much.

 

[mark_a]

It can sometimes but not always.

How will I know who’s interpretation is correct? How will I know you have the correct faith and morals teachings? Because you said so?

 

[JPatton]

I didn’t say this was the ONLY method. I claimed (based on the Scripture) that reading “what is written” is a sufficient method of bringin one to faith in the true Jesus Christ.

Besides, please provide me with oral teaching of the Gospel that is NOT found within the pages of Scripture? I’m talking about core fundamental truth that saves - is there anything unique? I don’t see any.

And the laugh? I’m weird?

When I decided to accept Jesus into my heart it was 2 passages that got me thinking. 1 Cor 13 and Romans 5 (because of some crazy things going on in my life). But what pushed me to the final decision was being orally taught about Christ and heaven and hell. No bible was used and no quoting of scripture (I’m not saying scripture is’nt important). Just a quick example of how oral teaching is important. The person who “evangelized” me(now my wife) was taught through tradition by her family (scripture used also but not “alone”) and when we have children I will teach them the faith by tradition.

Scripture & Tradition!
Patton

 

[justasking4]

How will I know who’s interpretation is correct? How will I know you have the correct faith and morals teachings? Because you said so?

Apply the same methods to other areas of knowledge. Look at the context, to whom is the book-letter being written to, understand what the words mean in their original context and comparing verses to other verses. Doing these things and others can be a great help in helping you to know what the correct teaching is.

 

[mark_a]

When I decided to accept Jesus into my heart it was 2 passages that got me thinking. 1 Cor 13 and Romans 5 (because of some crazy things going on in my life). But what pushed me to the final decision was being orally taught about Christ and heaven and hell. No bible was used and no quoting of scripture (I’m not saying scripture is’nt important). Just a quick example of how oral teaching is important. The person who “evangelized” me(now my wife) was taught through tradition by her family (scripture used also but not “alone”) and when we have children I will teach them the faith by tradition.

Scripture & Tradition!
Patton

Simple and beautiful. Thankyou.

 

[guanophore]

If you are using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 what traditions is Paul referring to?

2 Tim 1:13-14
13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Sacred Tradition is about a lifestyle, a manner of living through which the Apostolic Teachings are applied.

2 Tim 2:2
2 and **what you have heard from me **before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

1 Thess 2:13
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.

Phil 4:9
9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

The Sacred tradition is what has been learned and faithfully preserved and passed down, that which was received by word of mouth, and also by observing the lives of the Apostles and their successors.

If you look at the context where he mentions the Lord’s supper he is not telling us its a “Mass” but giving instructions in how they are to come together and the significance of the Lord’s supper.

It is one and the same, though it was not called the Mass for centuries. The Eastern Catholics still call it Divine Liturgy.

If you read carefully what you have written below Scripture and Tradition are not the same things.

Both are parts of the one Divine Deposit of Faith. They come from the same Source, and that is why they are both infallible.

"***80 ***“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

 

[mark_a]

Apply the same methods to other areas of knowledge. Look at the context, to whom is the book-letter being written to, understand what the words mean in their original context and comparing verses to other verses. Doing these things and others can be a great help in helping you to know what the correct teaching is.

That’s what a Presbyterian friend told me!

But their stand on the abortion issue is a big red flag that they might not have the morals context right.

 

[De_Maria]

Apply the same methods to other areas of knowledge. Look at the context, to whom is the book-letter being written to, understand what the words mean in their original context and comparing verses to other verses. Doing these things and others can be a great help in helping you to know what the correct teaching is.

Why not just obey Scripture which says:

Matthew 18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

1 Timothy 3
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Hebrews 13
17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Please, show me the verse upon which you stand to prove that the Scriptures ALONE are sufficient?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[sandusky]

Augustine:

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

*De bono Viduitatis, *ch 2. Cited in *An examination of the Council of Trent *by Martin Chemnitz, vol. I (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971), p. 15.

Augustine again:

It [the city of God] believes also the Holy Scriptures, old and new which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives and by which we walk without doubting whilst we are absent from the Lord.

Philip Schaff, *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, *vol. II, St. Augustine’s The city of God, Book XIX, ch 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p 413.

And again:

From among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.

Ibid., vol. II, St. Augustine’s The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, Book II, ch. 9, p. 539.

And once more:

I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission.

*Contra Cresconium, *Book II, ch. 31, 32. Cited in An Examination of the Council of Trent, by Martin Chemnitz, vol. I (St Louis: Concordia, 1971), p. 174.

Cyril of Jerusalem (what one teaches must be verified by Scripture):

…concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.

A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Catechetical Lectures of St Cyril 4.17, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), p. 42.

Today’s neo-Catholics assert that oral tradition is a separate source of revelation from that of Scripture, but that was not the view of the early church, nor was it the view of the church for centuries after that age. See: Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Harvard University, 1963) and Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1972).

 

[De_Maria]

Augustine:

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

*De bono Viduitatis, *ch 2. Cited in *An examination of the Council of Trent *by Martin Chemnitz, vol. I (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971), p. 15.

First of all, let me highlight the perfectly Catholic point made by the Bishop of Hippo:
Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

As a member of the Magisterium, St. Augustine proclaims the teaching of the Church:

St. Augustine:
“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it
is true”
Sermon 117:6

Augustine again:

It [the city of God]

Note that by the CITY OF GOD, St. Augustine means the Catholic Church.

believes also the Holy Scriptures, old and new which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives and by which we walk without doubting whilst we are absent from the Lord.

Of course, that is a partial quote. First, however, note that St. Augustine depicts the Church as the Authority. The Church believe *also the Scriptures. *Strongly insinuating that the Scriptures are an addition to something else already believed. Lets get the whole statement:

…old and new, which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives Habakkuk 2:4 and by which we walk without doubting while we are absent from the Lord…

This is where he stopped above, but it continues.

…2 Corinthians 5:6 So long as this faith remains inviolate and firm, we may without blame entertain doubts regarding some things which we have neither perceived by sense nor by reason, and which have not been revealed to us by the canonical Scriptures, nor come to our knowledge through witnesses whom it is absurd to disbelieve.

Who might he be talking about. A source of knowledge whom it is absurd to disbelieve?

And again:

From among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.

On Christian Doctrine, Book II, ch. 9, p. 539.

The Catholic Church does not deny any of this. It is only the Protestant teaching that these things are to be found in the Scriptures ALONE.

Note how St. Augustine says here “plainly laid down in Scripture” but at the same time recognizes that Scripture is not clear, (from the same book):

3. To reply briefly to all these. To those who do not understand what is here set down, my answer is, that I am not to be blamed for their want of understanding. It is just as if they were anxious to see the new or the old moon, or some very obscure star, and I should point it out with my finger: if they had not sight enough to see even my finger, they would surely have no right to fly into a passion with me on that account. As for those who, even though they know and understand my directions, fail to penetrate the meaning of obscure passages in Scripture, they may stand for those who, in the case I have imagined, are just able to see my finger, but cannot see the stars at which it is pointed. And so both these classes had better give up blaming me, and pray instead that God would grant them the sight of their eyes. For though I can move my finger to point out an object, it is out of my power to open men’s eyes that they may see either the fact that I am pointing, or the object at which I point.
Preface, On Christian Doctrine
newadvent.org/fathers/12020.htm
to be continued

 

[De_Maria]

CONT’D

This quote is also from On Christian Doctrine. The same book quoted by Sandusky. A book which St. Augustine wrote for the express purpose of teaching how to interpret Scripture. In other words, in so doing, St. Augustine has again donned his Magisterial hat.

And once more:

I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission.

*Contra Cresconium, *Book II, ch. 31, 32. Cited in An Examination of the Council of Trent, by Martin Chemnitz, vol. I (St Louis: Concordia, 1971), p. 174.

And that is the Catholic attitude and teaching. If anything contradicts Scripture, it is false.

I might note however, by his use of the word “canonical”, St. Augustine has expressed his acceptance of the authority of the Church. The Church “canonized” the Scriptures.

Cyril of Jerusalem (what one teaches must be verified by Scripture):

Again, this is correct. One can’t teach any doctrine in contradiction to Scripture.

…concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.

A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Catechetical Lectures of St Cyril 4.17, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), p. 42.

CYRIL of JERUSALEM

‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that
only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH…’
Catechetical Lectures 5,12

Today’s neo-Catholics assert that oral tradition is a separate source of revelation from that of Scripture,

I don’t know what you mean by neo-Catholics, but the Catholic Church has always held that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are the Word of God:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (192 bytes ) preview document matches
“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God,
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/97.htm

but that was not the view of the early church, nor was it the view of the church for centuries after that age. See: Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Harvard University, 1963) and Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1972).

True. Both are the Word of God and both must be kept:

2 Thessalonians 2
14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Today’s neo-Catholics assert that oral tradition is a separate source of revelation from that of Scripture, but that was not the view of the early church

St. Augustine:“I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 5)
Can I get an AMEN, sandusky!

Here’s one from St. Basil the Great (329-379) defends against those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit:"… the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of ‘sound doctrine’ is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,–of course bona fide debtors–they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." (Holy Spirit,10:25)
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the TRADITION of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, BOTH ARE OF THE SAME FORCE. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375])
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: ‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.’ (Catechetical Lectures 5,12)
Also from St. Cyril, applying the “rule of faith” he expounds upon above:“Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition” (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).
Saints Augustine, Cyril and Basil were no doubt “NEO-Catholics”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Today’s neo-Catholics assert that oral tradition is a separate source of revelation from that of Scripture, but that was not the view of the early church, nor was it the view of the church for centuries after that age.

According to Protestant scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, the early Church held Scripture and Tradition as authoritative, He writes:

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)

Likewise, Protestant scholar Ellen Flessman-Van Leer states:

Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers." (Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, p.188)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Augustine:“I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 5)
Can I get an AMEN, sandusky!

Here’s one from St. Basil the Great (329-379) defends against those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit:"… the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of ‘sound doctrine’ is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,–of course bona fide debtors–they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." (Holy Spirit,10:25)
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the TRADITION of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, BOTH ARE OF THE SAME FORCE. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375])
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: ‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.’ (Catechetical Lectures 5,12)
Also from St. Cyril, applying the “rule of faith” he expounds upon above:
"Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . " (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).
Saints Augustine, Cyril and Basil were no doubt “NEO-Catholics”

 

[sandusky]

Augustine:

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

*De bono Viduitatis, *ch 2. Cited in *An examination of the Council of Trent *by Martin Chemnitz, vol. I (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971), p. 15.

Augustine again:

From among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.

Ibid., vol. II, St. Augustine’s The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, Book II, ch. 9, p. 539.

And once more:

I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission.

*Contra Cresconium, *Book II, ch. 31, 32. Cited in An Examination of the Council of Trent, by Martin Chemnitz, vol. I (St Louis: Concordia, 1971), p. 174.

Cyril of Jerusalem (what one teaches must be verified by Scripture):

…concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.

A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Catechetical Lectures of St Cyril 4.17, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), p. 42.

Irenaeus:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith…

Alexander Roberts and W.H. Rambaut, trans., The Writings of Orenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1874), p. 258.

 

[De_Maria]

Well Sandy, you have an interesting debating method. Just post Augustinian quotes out of context.

Augustine:

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

As I said before. He doesn’t pass on Bibles but teaches what the Bible says. That is the meaning of Magisterium.

Augustine again:

From among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.

But he does not say “Scripture alone”. As has been confirmed in previous posts, St.Augusinte accepts the authority of the Catholic Church and her Tradition.

And once more:

I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission.

As does the Catholic Church. So what is the problem? What is it you don’t understand?

Find one Catholic doctrine which St. Augustine says is against Scripture.

Cyril of Jerusalem (what one teaches must be verified by Scripture):

…concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.

**

** Again, this is Catholic doctrine.

Irenaeus:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public**, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in **** the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith**…

And the Scriptures say that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. So the Pillar and Ground of our faith says that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Isn’t that marvelous!
Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Augustine AFFIRMS that he would not even believe the Gospels except for the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church. Does that sound like “sola scriptura” to you?

The Catholic Church teaches the faithful to prayerfully read the Bible every day. It is indeed “profitable” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) for teaching us the truth of God’s plan of Salvation. In fact, like St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Vatican II affirmed that “like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture.” (Dei Verbum, 21). But that is far from proclaiming the formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.

Many Catholic theologians through the centuries have taught that scripture is materially sufficient, that is, that Sacred Scripture contains all the material or “stuff” of divine revelation, either in explicit or implicit form.

The Protestant Reformers, however, taught the much narrower notion of formal sufficiency. Formal sufficiency means that all revelation necessary for the Church to possess is presented formally in the pages of Scripture. In other words, Sacred Scripture not only contains the “stuff” of divine revelation, but all that is required to understand the “stuff” is also contained in Sacred Scripture. So, you can read about the history of the ancient Judaism, the recent discoveries of archeology, how the canon of Scripture developed, how the ancient Christian Church began to expand, the problems they faced, the solutions they chose, the method in which they governed the early Church, etc. However, all that study is irrelevant. If you knew nothing at all but what was contained in scripture, you would rightly come to the same understanding of God’s plan of salvation as every other reader, merely through the study of Scripture alone. In other words, Sacred Scripture is self-interpreting.

The fundamental difference between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency is this: The Catholic Church holds that in order to properly understand the meaning of Sacred Scripture, the Church must have recourse to and rely on its collective interpretation (verses private interpretation). Peter tells us that prophesy is not a matter of private interpretation. A prophet speaks on behalf of God, as does Holy Writ. In other words, that which is to be believed as an article of faith by all should be understood in the context of the decrees of the “pillar and foundation of truth” which has been taught by the apostolic Church for the past 20 centuries. In this way, collective interpretations of the Church keeps our private interpretations of God’s plan of salvation “calibrated” to what has been handed on as true apostolic teaching from the very beginning. Is a proposed doctrine of faith new or ancient? Universal or isolated? Derived from the consent of antiquity, or picked from the ramblings of the few?

The thousands of divergent “Bible alone” doctrines of Protestantism make clear that Scripture is not “self-interpreting.” Yet, some would assert that it is the Holy Spirit that guides him, (and fails to guide all others with divergent interpetations). No doubt, the gift of understanding comes via the Holy Spirit. However do all receive spiritual gifts equally? Does scripture tell us that some gifts are for some, where as others receive other gifts? Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit works through the Church to teach the faith. It’s obvious the Ethiopian Eunuch did not find Scripture to be self-interpreting, either. The Holy Spirit enlightened the Ethiopian through the teachings of Philip. Even the noble Bereans needed Paul to explain to them what they did not find in the Scriptures by themselves, but did find only after it had been explained.

There is a wide range of meanings which can be legitimately inferred from written words alone. Perhaps this is why Paul didn’t merely write to his communities, but also visited them so that his written words were not misunderstood. Written communication alone can often be ambiguous without further guidance.
**
Here’s another NEOCATHOLIC, St. John Chrysostom:** “[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).