Sola Scriptura Revisited

[benedictus2]

Hello everybody!

I have often read here in CAF that Catholics believe in ST (=Sacred Tradition), which means that there are more things than in the bible handed down through the ages by the priests who are the desectors of the Apostels (Apostolic Succession). [By the way that’s comparable to the “Doctrine and Covenants” by Joseph Smith in the LDS Church!]

I just want to clarify what you mean by desectors. Do you mean those who came after the apostles?
I don’t think apostolic succession is like that of the LDS at all. Apostolic succession refers to those who were anointed by the apostles to continue their office (and these will be called Bishops). So the twelve all had successors and those in turn had successors and so forth and so on.
This link gives a good explanation of what we mean by Sacred Tradition.
http://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/sacred-tradition/what-is-sacred-tradition

But what does it mean then when Paul writes in 1 Cor 11:34

34"If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment The remaining matters I will arrange when I come."?

Does it mean that the decestors of the Apostels decided, “hey that’s good we have to write it down in Catechism”, or what?

Not quite. The Catechism of the Catholic church as it stands was only completed under Pope John Paul II although there were other Catechisms before that.

Actually your question could apply to the New Testament. Before the NT was written, only the OT was considered Scripture. The NT was actually written by Catholics, the first century members of the Catholic Church.

Where did they know it from? From the apostels? Have they spoken to the apostels?
I simply don’t get it…

I simply think that the Sacred Tradition ARE the Sacred Scriptures.

In a way you are right. Before the NT was written there was only Tradition. That is why when the Canon was first organized, Pope St Clement referred to it as the Canon of our Traditions.
But as the link I provided explains, not everything was written down.

And it must be remembered that the Catholic Church came before the NT. The Church came first, and then the NT was written. Then the Catholic Church determined which books will form the BIble.

It was the Catholic Church who gave the Bible to the world.

So there we are: Sola Scriptura.

Actually no. After the canon was formed, the tradition is necessary since any interpretation of the Scripture has to be passed by tradition.

For example, the Eucharist.

The tradition of the Church from the 1st century was that the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ. So to interpret that texts in the gospel about the last supper and the bread of life discourse we need to go by tradition.

The interpretation that it is merely symbolic is an invention that came in the first millennium with Berengarius and later on revived by the Protestant reformers Calvin and Zwingli.

But the Church has always believed in the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

The original poster seemed to indicate that the Council of Constantinople is affirming Sola Scriptura by stating that through the gospels, we can be given salvation. While the statement that we are given faith and salvation through the preaching of God’s word is certainly true, it doesn’t have a direct bearing on the practice of Sola Scriptura. So arguing against a statement that doesn’t demonstrate Sola Scriptura, is not arguing against Sola Scriptura.

Three thumbs up for clear thinking. (O*oops, was rather trigger happy on that one )
*
Also the fact that the OP used a terrible translation in his post was I think shows a certain dishonesty

 

[benedictus2]

First, my point is that no man has the ability to forgive any sin against God; even the most devout Jews knew that and they were along a lot longer than your church, but they understood.

Hmmm, I wonder then what this means: John 20: 21-23

(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Second, since your church has given itself the authority to have a priest hear a confession and forgive sins against God through some type of pennance, then refer to point 1.
1 Tim 3:15; who makes up the household of God? Is it not the collective body of all the individual saints with each having a spiritual gift(s) that we are commanded to exercise? Is the church the household of God? Yes.

Indeed the household of God is the Church. Top marks

Is that collective body of all the saints the Roman Catholic Church? NO.

Well this one you got wrong. The household of God is indeed the Church of the living God.
Who is the living God? Jesus Christ.
Did he establish a Church? Yes.
How many? One.
Does that Church exists till today? Yes.
Which Church is that? the Catholic Church.
And every Catholic is a member of that household. All are sinful members, some worse sinners than others but all members none the less.

Are some of those in the Roman Catholic Church part of the collective body of saints that make up the household of God? Yes Is it the entire colective body that is the pillar and support of the truth, which is Gods Holy Word? Yes

The problem with this notion of the church that is an invisible collective body is that Christ did not establish an invisible collected body. He was very particular with that carefully choosing his apostles.

Do you see that you miss the entire point of 1 Tim 3:15?

Sorry Beth but you are the one who completely missed the entire point of 1 Tim 3:15.

When Paul was writing, there was only 1 Church, the Catholic Church. The divisions came only later.

I hope so for your sake. The power and the authority is with the message, not with the messenger.

Nope. The power and authority was given to the messengers although th emessage does carry power too. When Jesus sent out the disciples two by two to heal the sick and cast out demon, the power was given to the disciples. When Jesus gave the disciples the power to bind and lose, well it was not the message that was doing the binding and losing, it was the messenger. Unless of course you have a different Bible.

The message is “repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which is through the Person of Jesus”, which is why one who rejects the message rejects the One who the message is about and from, which is Jesus. Now do you get it?

We got that way before you did. And when you repent, once you’ve re-ordered your life, where do you go? You come back to His Church because He did not intend us to be little lone rangers galloping out into the sunset.

You know why the idea of a lone ranger Christianity is so alluring? It is because it is the same old temptation that devil posed to Adam and Eve. A deification of the self. I will decide what God says, I will decide whether I turf this and that command out from God’s commandments. It is great when you don’t have to answer to any one but yourself. It is very easy to then fool yourself into thinking that you are following God. After all there is no one to contradict you is there.

 

[guanophore]

Hello everybody!

I have often read here in CAF that Catholics believe in ST (=Sacred Tradition), which means that there are more things than in the bible handed down through the ages by the priests who are the desectors of the Apostels (Apostolic Succession). [By the way that’s comparable to the “Doctrine and Covenants” by Joseph Smith in the LDS Church!]

But what does it mean then when Paul writes in 1 Cor 11:34

Does it mean that the decestors of the Apostels decided, “hey that’s good we have to write it down in Catechism”, or what?

Where did they know it from? From the apostels? Have they spoken to the apostels?
I simply don’t get it…

I simply think that the Sacred Tradition ARE the Sacred Scriptures.

So there we are: Sola Scriptura.

In Christ,
Esdra

The Sacred Tradition is called in the NT “The Way”. It is a lifestyle, world view, perspective and manner of living and embodying what Jesus taught. It is the Word of God alive within the Church.

It is true that Scripture reflects it, but it is not confined to Scripture. In fact, a primary aspect of is is how we understand what the Scripture says that is consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

The Reformers separated themselves from this, which is why they understand the Scriptures differently.