since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[SjMelnychuk]

I don’t think the first reformers believed they were outside thy body of Christian faith. It is not like the church had been born the day before and they went another way, or said anything that had not been said before, implicitly or explicitly (just as CC claims). There were 1500 years of “History”. Just look at the challenges the church had not even after 100 years, as evidenced by Revelations.

I believe this thread is specifically talking about whether or not the Bible is all we need or Sola Scriptura. Did the Apostles and Early Church Fathers ONLY go by the letters the Apostles had written?

The answer is NO

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

What people don’t understand is that the Church had ALWAYS held up SACRED TRADITION along with SACRED SCRIPTURE but as others have pointed out “to be Scriptural is Tradition,” So, what is tradition? Tradition is the oral teachings of the Church. The Church NEVER upheld Tradition as the only sole rule of faith and neither did the Church ever teach that the bible is the sole rule faith but together both Tradition and Scripture BOTH being lifted up along with Magisterial Authority. Is the Bible all we need? Obviously not if the common people didn’t have Sacred Scripture easily accessible and obviously not if Sola Scriptura leaves room for heresy and fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

The first church had the OT and apostolic teaching, which was quickly put to writing…

Actually, letters were written but Sacred Scripture wasn’t formally cannonized until quite a few hundred years after Jesus established the Church leaving Oral Teaching (TRADITION) for the majority of the Churches history to be the norm.

To be scriptural is the tradition of the body of faith, and of the Pillar.

And to have Tradition is Scriptural !

some can just as easily say some trust in their own fallible interpretation of what is tradition or which tradition, which church.

Which is why it’s probably a good idea to research the writings of the Early Church Fathers because then you have a good idea of what the Church was teaching when Jesus first established the Church… What was the Church Jesus established? If we research the writings of the Early Church Fathers we see that what the Early Church Fathers were teaching was consistent with what the Apostles were teaching. Careful and further study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church you’ll see that what the Catholic Church teaches today is what the Early Church Fathers were teaching and it’s all congruent with what the Apostles were teaching. One could easily go by their own fallible interpretation but we cannot go wrong with historical teachings.

Infallibilty as CC teaches today is "new"and not found in early church

If this teaching is new then there has to be evidence of such a claim because if it’s new then it would be considered a heresy so you better believe that this would have been addressed in the Early Church. There would be a pattern of it developing unless that teaching really did exist at the start of the Early Church.

The OT is evidence that God is faithful in His own way, and sometimes not like how we think, even as a corporate body, the status quo, the establishment think. Why else would He ask if He will find faith upon His return if His institution is so infallible?

As evidenced by humanity we don’t always have faith in God let alone faith in the Church that Jesus established. We’re accountable to what has been revealed to us. Humanity has always had the free-will to receive the grace to have faith and believe but it is our choice therefore God asked if He will find faith on the earth upon His return. He wasn’t questioning God’s power, ability etc in his Omnipotence to safe-guard and preserve the Church that God through Jesus Christ established. He was calling into question our faith not God’s omnipotence or the working of the Holy Spirit to guarantee the deposit of faith.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If the Gates of hell will not prevail, even if a remnant of believers remain, the fact is, it’s not questioning that within the context of God’s omnipotence to preserve the Church He established from error but rather, OUR OWN faith. So lets be clear as to what Jesus called into question here.

 

[Vouthon]

I think my thread on the agrapha relates to this topic as well:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=951013

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

**Agrapha

A name first used, in 1776, by J.G. Körner, for the Sayings of Jesus that have come down to us outside the canonical Gospels**. After Alfred Resch had chosen the expression, as the title for his learned work on these Sayings (1889), its technical meaning was generally accepted. We shall consider, first, the limits of the Agrapha; secondly, the criteria of their genuineness; thirdly, the list of those that are probably authentic…

The Agrapha must satisfy three conditions:
•they must be Sayings, not discourses;
•they must be Sayings of Jesus;
•they must not be contained in the canonical Gospels.

The sources from which the authentic Agrapha may be gathered are: (a) the New Testament and the New Testament manuscripts; (b) the Apocryphal tradition; (c) the patristic citations; and (d) the so-called “Oxyrhynchus Logia” of Jesus. Agrapha contained in Jewish or Mohammedan sources may be curious, but they are hardly authentic. Since the criticism of the Agrapha is in most cases difficult, and often unsatisfactory, frequent disagreement in the critical results must be expected as a matter of course. The following Agrapha are probably genuine sayings of Jesus.

(a) In the New Testament and the New Testament manuscripts: In Codices D and Phi, and in some versions of Matthew 20:28, “But ye seek from the small to increase, and from the greater to be less.” In Codex D of Luke 6:4: “On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said to him: Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the Law.” In Acts 20:35, “Remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.”

(b) In apocryphal tradition: In the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Jerome, Ezech., xviii, 7): “In the Gospel which the Nazarenes are accustomed to read, that according to the Hebrews, there is put among the greatest crimes he who shall have grieved the spirit of his brother.” In the same Gospel (Jerome, Eph., v, 3 sq.): “In the Hebrew Gospel too we read of the Lord saying to the disciples: And never, said he, rejoice, except when you have looked upon your brother in love.” In Apostolic Church-Order, 26: “For he said to us before, when he was teaching: That which is weak shall be saved through that which is strong.” In “Acta Philippi”, 34: “For the Lord said to me: Except ye make the lower into the upper and the left into the right, ye shall not enter into my kingdom.”

(c) In patristic citations: Justin Martyr, Dial. 47: “Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said, In whatsoever things I apprehend you, in those I shall judge you.” Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I, 24, 158: “For ask, he says for the great things, and the small shall be added to you.” Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I, 28, 177: “Rightly therefore the Scripture also in its desire to make us such dialecticians, exhorts us: Be approved moneychangers, disapproving some things, but holding fast that which is good.” Clement of Alexandria, Strom. V, 10, 64: “For not grudgingly, he saith, did the Lord declare in a certain gospel: My mystery is for me and for the sons of my house.” Origen, Homil. in Jer., XX, 3: “But the Saviour himself saith: He who is near me is near the fire; he who is far from me, is far from the kingdom.”

(d) In the Oxyrhynchus Logia:

There are actually a lot of these sayings. St. Papias, an early church father, wrote FIVE BOOKS worth of them that was sadly lost although fragments have remained in the writings of later Church Fathers.This corresponds with what the Bible itself tells us:

***Now Jesus did many other signs ***in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe to that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:30,31).

*But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written *(John 21:25).

 

[benhur]

I believe this thread is specifically talking about whether or not the Bible is all we need or Sola Scriptura. Did the Apostles and Early Church Fathers ONLY go by the letters the Apostles had written?

The answer is NO

Correct. SS understands this and does not negate oral gospel, apostolic teaching. SS deals with the surpassing authority of Scripture once it is written and received.

Again I like OT and Isarael examples. They would never consider the Talmud to be as authoritative as the Torah (though in practice it was so, and usually to the detriment of Writ’s intent). Even when their canon was open (after Moses but before David, or Jeremiah, or Malachi), when they were still hearing from God thru prophets etc., they still considered the written Word as the final authoritative norm. The Sanhedrin or high priest and any magisterium held the Word, Scripture, as their final norm.

What people don’t understand is that the Church had ALWAYS held up SACRED TRADITION along with SACRED SCRIPTURE but as others have pointed out “to be Scriptural is Tradition,” So, what is tradition? Tradition is the oral teachings of the Church. The Church NEVER upheld Tradition as the only sole rule of faith and neither did the Church ever teach that the bible is the sole rule faith but together both Tradition and Scripture BOTH being lifted up along with Magisterial Authority.

Agree and disagree. Yes, Scripture is within framework of its receivers, the church and its “rule of faith”. Just as Israel was the rule of faith in the OT. That is, the Babylonians , the Persians, the Greeks etc., did not put forth, nor interpret the Torah and the Prophetical scriptures. Israel was the holder, the context, even the light, as the church is today . But Writ is (was) still the final norm and the "carrier’’ is not to be thought of as equal to what it carries.

The scripture you quoted was written by an apostle, who had given both oral and written instructions etc… For sure Paul can say, “hold on to what I taught you”. It is quite a different thing to say 1500 years later hold on to what successive officers teach you.That is the use of tradition as final norm should be less authoritative than when coming from an apostle or his disciple, relative to the superiority of Writ. Again, all within the confines of the church (yes, circular, right back to presbyters, officers, teachers ).

 

[benhur]

Is the Bible all we need?

NO. We need also divine illumination by the Spirit, and we need the Body, the Church and a million other blessings and gifts.

What God wrote is what He wrote, and is infallible, without error. I can not say that about myself, or you, or my pastor, or the Catholic bishop where I live, or the Pope, or Billy Graham, our catechisms, etc., etc., etc…

Obviously not if the common people didn’t have Sacred Scripture easily accessible

Augustine, though he may have been the first to subtly imply an equal Tradition, also said Writ had “such surpassing authority, and was easy to read, and accessible to all men”.

and obviously not if Sola Scriptura leaves room for heresy and fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Agreed. So does Tradition. So do Councils. It is called free will. It is the wheat with the tares, the weak with strong, the mature with immature, sheep and wolves. It is called knowing all things by His unction yet seeing thru a glass darkly. It is called grace. It is called an imperfect church, imperfect men holding up a perfect Light to the world. Some churches do it better than others and at different times (just like individuals). We are one and holy, even catholic and apostolic now, but upon His return we will be a One, Holy, Catholic, and a Christ like Bride, and not until His return.

Actually, letters were written but Sacred Scripture wasn’t formally cannonized until quite a few hundred years after Jesus established the Church leaving Oral Teaching (TRADITION) for the majority of the Churches history to be the norm.

With the addition that Scripture is still Scripture, with or without canonization. The Corinthians did not wait for a council to live by, even die for a parchment of Writ.
The OT Israelites never canonized Writ.

Which is why it’s probably a good idea to research the writings of the Early Church Fathers because then you have a good idea of what the Church was teaching when Jesus first established the Church… What was the Church Jesus established? If we research the writings of the Early Church Fathers we see that what the Early Church Fathers were teaching was consistent with what the Apostles were teaching. Careful and further study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church you’ll see that what the Catholic Church teaches today is what the Early Church Fathers were teaching and it’s all congruent with what the Apostles were teaching. One could easily go by their own fallible interpretation but we cannot go wrong with historical teachings.

My friend, we go wrong (differ on ) Writ, and for sure we do with history also. But agree that gems and blessings are found in HIStory ( a context not to be denied).

If this teaching is new then there has to be evidence of such a claim because if it’s new then it would be considered a heresy so you better believe that this would have been addressed in the Early Church.

yes, if you assume a perfect church, and presume the exact manor of the keeping of His promises to shepherd.

There would be a pattern of it developing unless that teaching really did exist at the start of the Early Church.

Some do see that development.

As evidenced by humanity we don’t always have faith in God let alone faith in the Church that Jesus established. We’re accountable to what has been revealed to us. Humanity has always had the free-will to receive the grace to have faith and believe but it is our choice therefore God asked if He will find faith on the earth upon His return. He wasn’t questioning God’s power, ability etc in his Omnipotence to safe-guard and preserve the Church that God through Jesus Christ established. He was calling into question our faith not God’s omnipotence or the working of the Holy Spirit to guarantee the deposit of faith.

So humanity, as in "we’’ , “us” is not church ? the Church has no free will, no conditions for guaranteed perfection? Kind of like once saved always saved, like once right always right ?

I find that quite presumptuous, that if the CC erred in any faith and moral teaching ,that what other churches are teaching differently yet correctly, God would have failed, even lied, about His guidance (and not that we misunderstood just what His church is and how and though whom He guides at any specific moment in time).

I agree with you and do not question His perfect keeping of promises. If I move the question of finding proper faith from us,the individual, to the church(s), suggesting conditionality and fallibility for them also, it is applied equally to all churches, my own included. We (our churches) are all in the same boat.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t know if you’d find a whole book solely on the topic of sola scriptura. But Devin Rose has a book called The Protestant’s Dilemma in which he outlines the protestant view of various dogmas (including sola sciptura), brings them to their logical conclusion, and then shows how the conclusion is untenable.

Excellent book. I’ve got it and it’s one of the best resources I’ve ever seen.

I don’t know if it will make a difference to many n-C, but Devon is a convert and it shows in his book.

 

[benhur]

I don’t know if you’d find a whole book solely on the topic of sola scriptura. But Devin Rose has a book called The Protestant’s Dilemma in which he outlines the protestant view ofvarious dogmas (including sola sciptura), brings them to their logical conclusion, and then shows how the conclusion is untenable.

Apparently there are various definitions, some even false, of SS. For sure some are untenable. Not sure what Rose proposes what SS is.probably very “either/or” ish.

 

[Abu]

benhur #736
What God wrote is what He wrote, and is infallible, without error. I can not say that about… the Pope

Since the real and complete Bible came to us ONLY because of and through Christ’s own Catholic Church, established by Him, what you “know” God wrote came to you as Gospel truth ONLY because of Her, and it is guaranteed to be free from all error ONLY by Her – and ONLY because Christ established St Peter as His Chief Vicar of His Catholic Church.

If I move the question of finding proper faith from us,the individual, to the church(s), suggesting conditionality and fallibility for them also, it is applied equally to all churches, my own included. We (our churches) are all in the same boat.

Such a caricature of all “churches” being equally fallible totally rejects Christ’s mandate to His ONE and ONLY Church founded by Him personally, as well as failing totally to realize that all of those thousands of self-formed “churches” differ one from the other in their beliefs and teaching.

Darkening the bright clarity of Christ’s Truths can only tarnish those who fall prey to them when they can, with the right will and effort, have the fullness of truth.

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

 

[SjMelnychuk]

We need also divine illumination by the Spirit, and we need the Body, the Church and a million other blessings and gifts.

Well, certainly, we need all these things!

What God wrote is what He wrote, and is infallible, without error.

By “what God wrote” you mean in reference to the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is infallible? And it sure seems like you feel as if you your interpretation of Sacred Scripture is infallible? Even if the Bible is infallible, how do we know WHO has the infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture?

I can not say that about myself, or you, or my pastor, or the Catholic bishop where I live, or the Pope, or Billy Graham, our catechisms, etc., etc., etc…

Well certainly none of us can claim infallibility with exception to when the Pope Speaks with Magisterial Authority.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I have the faith to believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and in all these things knew ALL and is PRESENT beyond our comprehension with ALL things and exists beyond time as we know time itself. And in knowing all this, I believe that if God saw fit to establish His Church the way He wanted His Church to be that He would also see fit to preserve the Church that He saw fit to establish… And I also believe that Jesus established His Church with Apostolic Authority.

Catholics do not rely on just Sacred Scripture and Tradition alone either. We rely on Apostolic / Magisterial Authority and the historical teachings of the Church. We also have the writings of the Early Church Fathers to bring validity to what the Early Church taught and believed at the time Jesus established His Church.

Augustine, though he may have been the first to subtly imply an equal Tradition, also said Writ had “such surpassing authority, and was easy to read, and accessible to all men”.

He may have been the first to communicate what the Catholic Church has taught from the very beginning that Sacred Tradition is as INSPIRED as Sacred Scripture therefore Tradition is given the same value as Scripture. The point is, prior to the Canonization of Sacred Scripture it was all Tradition and yet MASS is full of Sacred Scripture AND Tradition - TOGETHER

 

[SjMelnychuk]

So does Tradition. So do Councils. It is called free will.

Well … all the more reason to not only live by Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition but to also live by Apostolic / Magisterial Authority … all the more reason that makes the Catholic Church being established with Apostolic Authority make sense … ie The Church being the pillar and foundation of TRUTH … it makes sense and quite logical for an Apostolic Authority to be guardians and stewards of the TRUTH made know by Jesus to His Apostles who then passed down the teachings of Jesus to those the Apostles mentored as the Church Jesus established grew and matured. Just who were those the Apostles mentored? Perhaps some of the Early Church Fathers? Who then became mentors themselves? You know, the great commission and all

 

[SjMelnychuk]

We are one and holy, even catholic and apostolic now,

The question is … which Apostolic Authority do you follow? You can’t claim to be Apostolic if in nature you really are not. To be Apostolic means to be following an Apostolic formula if you will … Apostolic by nature is an authoritative structure and in context within the Church that Jesus established, a structure within an organic structure. Yes Catholic means Universal Church and yet Protestant Tradition is opposed to the one true Apostolic Catholic Church. I mean, it’s been my observation that Protestants don’t understand what it means to be Catholic especially if they’re referring to themselves as Catholic while remaining Protestant. Because to me that’s not logical. To be Catholic means you submit to Apostolic Authority in your life and therefore, recognize Peter as the first Pope among many to follow down the centuries to Pope Francis. And yet many Protestants reject Papal Authority. To be Catholic is to adhere to the Apostles Creed.

Apostles Creed

1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,

• Catholics and Protestants agree on 1-8

1. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

• Catholic and Protestants part ways with #9 as the Communion of Saints are not fully recognized within Protestant Churches and while Protestants believe in the idea of a Catholic Church it’s far more then just the idea of Universal but rather fully Universal ie not in protest against each other but rather holding firm to the same doctrine and same teachings and yet we differ on Eucharist, Mary, Salvation, Justification… even among Protestants there are differing doctrines but a ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL HAVE ONE HOLY DOCTRINE ACCEPTED BY ALL… YOU KNOW, THE BASICS of CATHOLIC TEACHING.

1. the forgiveness of sins,
2. the resurrection of the body,
3. and the life everlasting.Amen.

AND OF COURSE BOTH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANTS AGREE ON 10-12

With the addition that Scripture is still Scripture, with or without canonization.

Scripture is still Scripture but for the majority of the Churches history we only had Oral Teachings and what were the Oral Teachings? See Catholics are not rejecting Sacred Scripture which you seem to be implying over and over and over and over again. We’re not rejecting Sacred Scripture. We just believe, based upon history that prior to the Canonization of Sacred Scripture the Church followed Sacred Tradition. And MASS was ALWAYS FULL OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. IN FACT WITHOUT SACRED SCRIPTURE AND EUCHARIST ONE CANNOT HAVE MASS!

All we’re saying is that we hold Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition to be of equal value… BOTH equally inspired and BOTH Sacred and BOTH useful in teaching, discipline, in knowing how the Christian aught to live their lives. To Catholics BOTH are of EQUAL IMPORTANCE … therefore we do not disregard Sacred Scripture.

It’s not either/or with Catholics but both/and …

 

[SjMelnychuk]

The Corinthians did not wait for a council to live by,

Councils were necessary to fight against heresy infiltrating the Church. So yes, The Corinthians or even the Church in Rome did not wait for a council to live by or even wait for the whole complete Bible in their hands, they had only a few letters here and there AND they also had Sacred Tradition.

The OT Israelites never canonized Writ.

***Here’s where being Indigenous and First Nations kinda brings home the point to Sacred Tradition. ***

Did you know that the Israelites are actually an INDIGENOUS PEOPLE!?

To be Indigenous is to have an Oral Sacred Tradition. To be an Israelite is to have an Oral Sacred Tradition. It makes perfect logical sense then that the Church Jesus (A Palestinian Jew) would establish a Sacred Oral Tradition to be held up as Sacred as Scripture!

So you have Jesus, (Palestinian Jew AND Indigenous) establishing His Church with a Sacred Oral Tradition … KINDA MAKES SENSE TO ME!! Didn’t you ever learn about the Jewish People having an Oral Tradition Culture? But you know Western Culture isn’t too familiar with the Sacred Oral Traditions of Ancient Cultures.

 

[benhur]

Councils were necessary to fight against heresy infiltrating the Church. So yes, The Corinthians or even the Church in Rome did not wait for a council to live by or even wait for the whole complete Bible in their hands, they had only a few letters here and there AND they also had Sacred Tradition.

***Here’s where being Indigenous and First Nations kinda brings home the point to Sacred Tradition. ***

Did you know that the Israelites are actually an INDIGENOUS PEOPLE!?

To be Indigenous is to have an Oral Sacred Tradition. To be an Israelite is to have an Oral Sacred Tradition. It makes perfect logical sense then that the Church Jesus (A Palestinian Jew) would establish a Sacred Oral Tradition to be held up as Sacred as Scripture!

So you have Jesus, (Palestinian Jew AND Indigenous) establishing His Church with a Sacred Oral Tradition … KINDA MAKES SENSE TO ME!! Didn’t you ever learn about the Jewish People having an Oral Tradition Culture? But you know Western Culture isn’t too familiar with the Sacred Oral Traditions of Ancient Cultures.

Again,that they had an oral tradition by no means says it was as "sacred’’ as Scripture.

The Talmud is not inerrant as is the Torah.

 

[benhur]

See Catholics are not rejecting Sacred Scripture which you seem to be implying over and over and over and over again.

Really ? Gotta go, Sj.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

]Such a caricature of all “churches” being equally fallible totally rejects Christ’s mandate to His ONE and ONLY Church founded by Him personally,

Hey, I am not the one saying there are a bunch of boats out there. I put us all in *one *boat.

 

[benhur]

Since the real and complete Bible came to us ONLY because of and through Christ’s own Catholic Church, established by Him, what you “know” God wrote came to you as Gospel truth ONLY because of Her, and it is guaranteed to be free from all error ONLY by Her – and ONLY because Christ established St Peter as His Chief Vicar of His Catholic Church.

Again, to say Tradition is as inerrant as Scripture seems untenable to me.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, to say Tradition is as inerrant as Scripture seems untenable to me.

“Tradition” is Apostolic teaching. What you’re saying, then, is that Apostolic teaching recorded in the Bible is inerrant, but Apostolic teaching not recorded in the Bible isn’t inerrant? In other words, that God both protects and doesn’t protect Apostolic teaching? That seems untenable…

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Again,that they had an oral tradition by no means says it was as "sacred’’ as Scripture.

The Talmud is not inerrant as is the Torah.

In the bible the Apostles commended the early Church for holding firm to the TRADITIONS passed on by BOTH letter AND by word of mouth.

TRADITION = teachings BOTH oral AND letter.

If in the bible the Apostles commended the early Church for HOLDING FIRM to the TRADITIONS passed down by LETTER and WORD OF MOUTH. Should we, especially if this is in the bible, do the same?

What do you suppose the Apostles teachings passed down by word of mouth was?

Jn 21:25

If Jesus taught and did more things than what the Apostles were able to put down on ink to paper, are you saying that because these things Jesus taught and did were not inspired because the Apostles didn’t record in writing these things? If so, by what authority do you have to say what Jesus did was inspired or not?

Catholics are VERY scriptural when we HOLD FIRM to the Apostles teachings (all inclusive = tradition) passed on by letter (written tradition) and by word of mouth (oral tradition)… Or did you somehow skip over that bible verse? Or if you recall that bible verse commending to Church to hold firm to the Apostles teachings both by letter and word of mouth?

 

[clem456]

Again, to say Tradition is as inerrant as Scripture seems untenable to me.

There is no scripture without Tradition.


I’m not sure how you define inerrant (doesn’t matter much how you or I define the word), but the idea that Tradition is the lesser stepchild, or less inspired, or less inerrant, than scripture makes no sense.

Without the Tradition which came through the community of persons, there is no such thing as scripture.
*The bible did not drop from the sky written by the hand of God. *

This persistent suggestion that Tradition is subservient to the book denies the Incarnation. There may be lip service to it, but true faith in the Incarnation requires acceptance of the inspired nature of the community which wrote the scriptures. How could inspired scripture come out of an un-inspired community? How could the book be more than the community that wrote it?
Christ came as a person, not a book. He established a community, he did not write a book. He is the word made flesh. He is…The book is not the word made flesh, Christ is. It baffles me how such basic Christian realities can be glossed over.

The Incarnation of Christ is the heart of the Christian faith.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no scripture without Tradition.

This is exactly right. This is indisputable.

There is no way to refute this point.

 

[benhur]

“Tradition” is Apostolic teaching. What you’re saying, then, is that Apostolic teaching recorded in the Bible is inerrant, but Apostolic teaching not recorded in the Bible isn’t inerrant? In other words, that God both protects and doesn’t protect Apostolic teaching? That seems untenable…

Pretty much.