sola scriptura

[Gaelic_Bard]

Very true.

So in order for Hebrews to be accepted as apostolic, there was a determination made by someone as to its authenticity. But this judgment had to be based upon the contents of the writing and without consideration to its human authorship since it is unknown. It follows, then, that there already existed, prior to the writing, the deposit of faith against which the book of Hebrews was measured. This is Sacred Tradition in action. The Church had to have already possessed the Truth present in Sacred Scripture in order to make a judgment as to the inspired nature of any particular writing it includes.

Yes. A judgment was made by the Church that it was not one of the inspired writings, along with many others. In the same way the Church discerned which writings were inspired, all based upon the deposit of faith handed down orally by the Apostles. Sacred Tradition came first and already possessed the fulness of truth. It was the truth present Sacred Tradition that set the bar for any writing that was to be considered inspired.

It is that same Church that teaches the real presence in the Eucharist, who administers the sacraments, who celebrates Mass, rather than having a “service”. All these wierd Catholic things that you do not find spelled out specifically in the Bible come from Tradition and they are as apostolically valid as the writings chosen by this Church to make up the New Testament. You can’t have one without the other. If the Scriptures are valid, then so is Sacred Tradition.

All very true, Steve. There’s nothing here in substance that I would disagree with (tradition being the only determinative factor in the authenticity of Hebrews notwithstanding). We both agree that the teaching of the apostles was handed on to the church in both written and verbal forms.

Where we ultimately disagree is whether the content of tradition contains doctrine outside of what is recorded in Scripture and whether said tradition can be demonstrated to be apostolic in origin.

Which takes it back 50 posts ago and why I wanted to avoid a discussion on something we already agree on anyway

 

[SteveVH]

Where we ultimately disagree is whether the content of tradition contains doctrine outside of what is recorded in Scripture and whether said tradition can be demonstrated to be apostolic in origin.

Okay, but where is it written that Scripture contains all that was handed down by the Apostles? If anything the scriptures tell us the opposite, that not all of the books in the world could hold what Christ said and did. We have selected writings by a Church that already possessed the fulness of the apostolic faith. Now I can understand how one looking in from the outside might say “how can I be sure that this practice is really apostolic”? I think it would be a legitimate concern. But then they should have the same concern as to whether or not the Bible really is the inspired word of God because it is the same Church that proclaimed it so.

Which takes it back 50 posts ago and why I wanted to avoid a discussion on something we already agree on anyway

Point taken, darn it.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Okay, but where is it written that Scripture contains all that was handed down by the Apostles?

Yes and that’s why the issue is so critical. If a doctrine not contained in Scripture can be shown to be theopneustos, then sola scriptura would have to be abandoned. However, those doctrines that divide us I do not believe can be shown to be apostolic. Therefore, my default position is sola scriptura because we can determine its apostolicity.

Point taken, darn it.

Not your fault

 

[Porknpie]

Yes, it would be because if I as a professor teach you mathematics, and then write down the same explanation, what I’ve written on paper is vested with the same authority as what I communicated to you orally.

Interesting…how you can believe all this and not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It’s in scripture…clearly
It’s in Tradition…clearly

“It was written on paper and communicated orally.”

 

[Porknpie]

This is a great point, but it’s based on an assumption of my beliefs. I do not dismiss the authority of the church so much as I dismiss the claim that the catholic church is THE church.

Traverse…understand your point but don’t agree. It’s in scripture that Christ established one Church: one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

The early church attests to this fact. There are even more quotes from the 400’s, 500s, 600s, 700s, 800s, 900s …and on. Christ said he would be with his Church always until the end of time, guiding it to ALL truth… Now how could he be guiding his Church to ALL TRUTH for 2000 years and then someone comes along and says “I have the Truth” and another Church? Actually, this has now been said thousands of times… this would make Christ contradict himself and it would make him a liar as his “invisible church” could not find, know or understand the Truth. Every pastor for himself…

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some;** while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one anothe**r.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church….” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

 

[SteveVH]

Yes and that’s why the issue is so critical. If a doctrine not contained in Scripture can be shown to be theopneustos, then sola scriptura would have to be abandoned. However, those doctrines that divide us I do not believe can be shown to be apostolic. Therefore, my default position is sola scriptura because we can determine its apostolicity.

What evidence would satisfy you? What are you looking for and by what measure will the evidence be measured? By one’s interpretation of Scripture? And if our interpretations disagree then what? The Scriptures advise us to take these matters to the Church, not to the Bible.

Take the Eucharist, for example. We believe the real presence of Christ is absolutely an apostolic teaching and will be happy to visit both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to make our point. So what would satisfy you in this case? What would it take to change your mind?

 

[Porknpie]

Interesting…how you can believe all this and not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It’s in scripture…clearly
It’s in Tradition…clearly

“It was written on paper and communicated orally.”

Shoot…I shoud have added it’s “apostolic” as well…

 

[Reuben_J]

Interesting…how you can believe all this and not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It’s in scripture…clearly
It’s in Tradition…clearly

“It was written on paper and communicated orally.”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

What evidence would satisfy you? What are you looking for and by what measure will the evidence be measured? By one’s interpretation of Scripture? And if our interpretations disagree then what? The Scriptures advise us to take these matters to the Church, not to the Bible.

Take the Eucharist, for example. We believe the real presence of Christ is absolutely an apostolic teaching and will be happy to visit both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to make our point. So what would satisfy you in this case? What would it take to change your mind?

I don’t even think it would take that, Steve (the real presence, that is). If you could demonstrate both from Scripture and tradition that the papacy is what Catholics claim it is, everything else would be true by definition, no?

Interpretation? Well yes and no. Definitely Scriptural interpretation…also historical interpretation as well.

 

[SteveVH]

Shoot…I shoud have added it’s “apostolic” as well…

I think you made your point very well.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t even think it would take that, Steve (the real presence, that is). If you could demonstrate both from Scripture and tradition that the papacy is what Catholics claim it is, everything else would be true by definition, no?

People can and will argue about the office of the papacy. I will show you apostolic succession through the bishops and you will deny it, claiming it died with the Apostles. I will demostrate Peter’s primacy among the Apostles and you will tell me it died with Peter. I don’t have the energy or the inclination to go down that road.

Much more to the point would be to demonstrate that the Church’s belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is nothing more than idolatry, because if we aren’t right, that’s exactly what it is. Your being able to demonstrate that this is not an Apostolic teaching and a practice and belief of the most ancient Church would destroy the Catholic Church as this happens to be the source and summit of our faith. No Eucharist, no Catholic Church (nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Anglican, nor Lutheran). You could pretty much get rid of us all. But that is another thread. Hmmm…

 

[Eufrosnia]

Sure, but it is acceptable to practical reason. Set aside the question of whether the Scripture is inspired for a moment. Let’s just say his writings, as well as the writings of Luke are uninspired… they’re just historical records.

We also know that outside of the NT witness itself, Paul was a learned rabbinical teacher, who, apparently, at the drop of a hat goes from being a persecutor of the Christian faith to being the preeminent Christian apostle to the entire Gentile world, and professes to his experiences up to and including the point of beheading. I would ask you, what is more reasonable to the practical senses, that Paul’s testimony is true or that a wealthy, …

I am not sure I understand. What is the natural reason you appeal to? I cannot understand how it is natural for me to assume because Paul is a rabbi that he saw Christ? I cannot see how to link it unless I first believe Scripture. Hence the circle.

Can you state the practical reason that you apply here? Like in mine, I said the reason was the miracle of Christ and the authority of student from a teacher.

Also, the fact that Apostles accepted Paul only matters if you had already given assent to the Apostles by virtue of the practical reason of teacher to student. IF you had already given assent, then there is no practical reason to think that this authority suddenly stopped with the Apostles. After all, they approved someone else who was not an Apostles - Paul.

Okay. The latter part being dependent on how you define apostolic succession.

Actually no. That is what is pretty neat. We do not need to know what Apostolic Succession and its scope before accepting the authority. The authority is accepted in the natural sense of assenting to the student after the teacher. We then know the scope of authority or definition of Apostolic Succession in the FAITH sense from the Apostolic Successors themselves i.e. like when a medical specialist says X is my field and Y is not.

S
This would be true of any Christian.

Actually no. But I am glad you raise this point.

Think about a University. There are many who study under the Professor. But only the ones he ends up taking as Phd students and then certify are considered experts in that field. So in this way, only the ones who are given the authority can say they are an Apostolic Successor.

In the case of all Christians, that was not the case. If you want to look at this somewhat historically, this is why Timothy is not the same as all Christians and he is advised to pick good successors. And as you can see once again, all this is very much within our practical experiences.

S
It gets no more complicated. How would you address the inherent circularity of the Catholic position, though? Especially as regards the canon. I know you haven’t argued this point, but here is what I usually see:

Premise: The Church is infallible
Major: The Church has infallibly defined that Scripture is God’s word, thus, we know it is.
Minor: The Church has infallibly interpreted the word of God to say the church is infallible.
Conclusion: The Church is infallible.

The only way, IMO, in the above scenario to break the circle, is to know that revelation is God’s word apart from church infallibility.

Actually, this is another good question. The thing to note is that the Church’s claim for infallibility is not PRIMARILY from Scripture. The infallibility of the Church is defined in the following way after you accept Apostolic Succession

1. Succession is true (as argued above through natural reason) thus we listen to them to learn about Christ
2. These Successors have defined the concept of Succession and the scope of such a successor more rigorously and is accepted based on (1) alone.
3. These successors claim infallibility when they teach and we assent to them because of (1)

So in all of this, the Catholic first assents to the Church. Then it accepts Scripture, Infallibility or any other Dogma because the Church is the one that Christ has given the authority to teach (not an article of faith per-se but from that practical reason of teacher->student).

The Church then shows that its claim is also supported in Scripture as it teaches.

The question you raised is exactly why many Protestants find it hard to accept Papal infallibility for an example. They look at the Church quoting Scripture and they see it as the Church interpreting it in a favorable way for itself to justify itself. The issue is that the Church cannot be justified primarily by using Scripture as you correctly pointed out. A circular argument cannot prove anything.

So the authority of the Church has always been the primary thing any Christian had to first assents to because it is the only thing that naturally follows after the authority of Christ. This is why any other attempt to try and salvage the Bible without the church or some other set of doctrines without a church always leads to a circle. The claims are transcendent and without a clear authority, it is hard to ground the claims. In this sense, the authority of Christ is truly the grounding or terminating item of the circle in that Catholic argument. Since Christ’s authority by his death and resurrection is not an element of faith but historical fact, then we have the natural progress through practical REASON to the Apostolic Succession and from that we accept all the other claims, including that of Scripture being the Word of God, infallibility, what it means to be a Church, sacraments all of it on FAITH.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

People can and will argue about the office of the papacy. I will show you apostolic succession through the bishops and you will deny it, claiming it died with the Apostles. I will demostrate Peter’s primacy among the Apostles and you will tell me it died with Peter. I don’t have the energy or the inclination to go down that road.

Much more to the point would be to demonstrate that the Church’s belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is nothing more than idolatry, because if we aren’t right, that’s exactly what it is. Your being able to demonstrate that this is not an Apostolic teaching and a practice and belief of the most ancient Church would destroy the Catholic Church as this happens to be the source and summit of our faith. No Eucharist, no Catholic Church (nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Anglican, nor Lutheran). You could pretty much get rid of us all. But that is another thread. Hmmm…

Yeah. I wasn’t challenging you on the papacy. Only stating that it would be enough to demonstrate that everything else is true if the papacy is. With the real presence, as you said, if that were demonstrated true, at most it would narrow it down to several church bodies. If you want to start a thread on the Supper you’re more than welcome to.

 

[SteveVH]

Yeah. I wasn’t challenging you on the papacy. Only stating that it would be enough to demonstrate that everything else is true if the papacy is. With the real presence, as you said, if that were demonstrated true, at most it would narrow it down to several church bodies. If you want to start a thread on the Supper you’re more than welcome to.

 

[PRmerger]

So in order for Hebrews to be accepted as apostolic, there was a determination made by someone as to its authenticity. But this judgment had to be based upon the contents of the writing and without consideration to its human authorship since it is unknown. It follows, then, that there already existed, prior to the writing, the deposit of faith against which the book of Hebrews was measured. This is Sacred Tradition in action. The Church had to have already possessed the Truth present in Sacred Scripture in order to make a judgment as to the inspired nature of any particular writing it includes

'zactly.

This, along with the claim that “revelation ended with the death of the last apostle”, and the canon of Scripture are all examples which answer Gaelic’s question posed here:

What does apostolic oral teaching tell me, that I need to know, that Scripture doesn’t?

In short, Gaelic has proclaimed on this thread alone at least 3 things that he knows from apostolic oral teaching that is not in Scripture:

• revelation ended with the death of the last apostle
• Hebrews is theopneustos, despite its authorship being unknown
• the canon of the NT

I would add that as Catholics we believe that the form of the Divine Liturgy is something that we need to know that we received from apostolic oral teaching and not from the Scriptures.

 

[Reuben_J]

It gets no more complicated. How would you address the inherent circularity of the Catholic position, though? Especially as regards the canon. I know you haven’t argued this point, but here is what I usually see:

Premise: The Church is infallible
Major: The Church has infallibly defined that Scripture is God’s word, thus, we know it is.
Minor: The Church has infallibly interpreted the word of God to say the church is infallible.
Conclusion: The Church is infallible.

Been very well addressed but I just want to add my 2 cents here.

Interesting that you use the word infallible when saying about the Church. From my observation here, infallible seems to bring the worst in non-Catholics in understanding Catholicism because more often than not it destroys whatever objectivity that there is. So I hope you will not be influenced negatively by this word but still maintain your rationale.

(1)Premise: The Church is infallible

Christianity is basically the religion of Apostolic Succession, the apostles being the Lord’s witnesses. What we have today is what had been handed down to us by the apostles through a succession line that is uninterrupted which we call the Church.

When Jesus died, risen and ascended to heaven, he left behind a Church headed by the apostles no matter how simple that Church was then; perhaps its nature was dictated by the small number of the believers and the hostile opposition from those outside it.

The Church is infallible because what she has is the religion itself by the deposit of faith which is contained in the Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magestrium. Thus it can only be said that the Church is fallible if the succession line from the first apostles is interrupted. This has been the major contention among non-Catholics here who say that the Church which was formed by the apostles is not the Catholic Church today. One needs to prove that is so for that statement to be valid.

So yes, the Church by itself is infallible though the people who lead it may not.

(2)Major: The Church has infallibly defined that Scripture is God’s word, thus, we know it is.

Yes, as been beaten to death here. Without the Church we do not have the Bible as we know it is today.

(3)Minor: The Church has infallibly interpreted the word of God to say the church is infallible.

It may be better worded if it is said that the reason for the Church to be infallible as in (1). There are some difficult verses in the Scriptures that can be interpreted in various ways. When that happens, we should look to the Church for the correct interpretation because she has the Tradition to say it with certainty. Examples, the Real Presence, Peter as given the keys and to be the shepherd to feed the Lord’s sheep and the power to bind and to loose given to the apostles.

(4) Conclusion: The Church is infallible.

Yes, she being the pillar of truth and she would not be defeated, deceived and astray because the Gate of Hell will not prevail against her.

The only way, IMO, in the above scenario to break the circle, is to know that revelation is God’s word apart from church infallibility.

Only believers, that is those who were given the word would know and believe it is God’s word and not anybody else since they would not believe anyway. Thus, yes, only the Church can only proclaim that revelation is God’s word. Others who would try to do so may not have the credibility since they do not have the deposit of faith unlike the Church.

The analogy that the Church is an unbroken circle does not apply here. The Church gave us the Bible because it contains her belief but by no means are all the belief to be found only in the Bible as it cannot contain everything that Jesus taught and said. So we have to look at the Sacred Tradition too and understand the Bible in the light of it.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t even think it would take that, Steve (the real presence, that is). If you could demonstrate both from Scripture and tradition that the papacy is what Catholics claim it is, everything else would be true by definition, no?

Interpretation? Well yes and no. Definitely Scriptural interpretation…also historical interpretation as well.

Using scripture + Tradition

• Peter in scripture is clearly the leader of the apostles, not by Peter usurping the position, or by vote from the apostles, or by council, but by God directly bestowing the position on him, in front of all the apostles .

2 examples

Jesus answers Peter Luke 12:39-44 “But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would have been awake and * would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.” *Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward *οἰκονόμος oikonomos] whom his master will set καθίστημι kathistēmi make ruler] over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions".

Definition οἰκονόμος *oikonomos]*steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has entrusted the management of his affairs

Definition καθίστημι *kathistēmi make ruler] *1) to set, place, put a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it) b) to appoint one to administer an office

Jesus speaks of 1 person, all in singular terms that He will do this for.

a dispute happens at the last supper over primacy among the apostles. Jesus says it’s Peter.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60

• Peter *in Tradition *has successors

Irenaeus, ~180 a.d. Disciple of Polycarp who was disciple of St John the apostle. Irenaeus is 1 man away from an apostle. From Bk 3 Ch3 V 3. Against Heresies newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm “the apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded*** Anacletus***; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. [snip for space] . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. ***Alexander ***followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

12 bishops from Peter in the Church of Rome, down to Irenaeus day. Same Church Benedict XVI, pope of today. No other Church does Irenaeus give this lineage from Peter as the reason for the points he makes, “all must agree with this Church”.

 

[Porknpie]

'zactly.

This, along with the claim that “revelation ended with the death of the last apostle”, and the canon of Scripture are all examples which answer Gaelic’s question posed here:

In short, Gaelic has proclaimed on this thread alone at least 3 things that he knows from apostolic oral teaching that is not in Scripture:

• revelation ended with the death of the last apostle
• Hebrews is theopneustos, despite its authorship being unknown
• the canon of the NT ( # of books)
• the canon is inerrant (post 90)
• the canon is inspired (post 483)

I would add that as Catholics we believe that the form of the Divine Liturgy is something that we need to know that we received from apostolic oral teaching and not from the Scriptures.

At least 5…

 

[PRmerger]

At least 5…

Yep.

And here’s some more. While Gaelic has not proclaimed here on this thread that he believes these things we know from apostolic oral tradition, it would be peculiar for him to not profess these things:

-there will be no new apostles
-the canon of Scripture is closed
-the Trinity
-the hypostatic union

 

[CopticChristian]

Paul cites the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18. As for Paul…that’s it!? That’s almost 50% of the NT!