Sola Scriptura...

[spina1953]

St. John in his Gospel at the end of it said that not everything that Jesus said and did was written down but that which you might come to believe. I parapharsed this. However, that being so from an Apostle, then Sacred Tradition is on par with Sacred Scripture. tradition is those thongs of men and Sacred tradition are those that come from Christ that were not written down. As a matter of fact very few of the Apostles wrote anything, or had anything written down for them, of those who did write. So it is obvious that there are things that Christ taught that were for whatever reason not written down but passed on to the ECF and passed on as a deposit of faith on and in the Catholic Church. Also, what the Bible says and what the Bible means are two very different things. Even Bibilical Scholars admit that no one person can understand everyting in the Bible and that they too have a hard time in trying to get the sense of what the Scriptures are saying and the meaning thereof.

 

[Nicea325]

Luther answers the question.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

It would be helpful if you distinguished customs/traditions (such as the Easter date, sign of the cross) from Sacred Tradition, by capitalizing the latter.

That way we know that you understand the difference.

OK Just trying to be biblical (where “tradition” is not capitalized). But i can be "Traditional"also.

 

[PRmerger]

OK Just trying to be biblical (where “tradition” is not capitalized).

You do understand the difference between tradition/custom and Sacred Tradition, right?

 

[pocohombre]

Your thoughts are of recent times and not of the early Church that Christ established. It is a new Gospel, a product of sola Scriptura where scripture is separated from The Church that produced it.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).

"Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ **Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, **which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

Who better to believe Poco? St Ambrose and the other Early Church writers (who clearly also had a different understanding of John 6 than you) or someone 1,500 years later who espouses a symbolic meal saying that a sacrifice is no longer required?

Or should we believe Theodore or again someone 1,500 years later?

**" he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood." **Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (ante A.D. 428).

Look, my main point here is role of priesthood in the eucharist, and that whatever your “real presence” doctrine is, can only a priest in OT sense “perform” it, and is the “mass” a sacrifice in that sense (offering up something to God for appeasement even propitiation-again, an OT event)? Also that “bread” is now the symbol (not lamb) does not detract from ANY theory/dogma of real presence. The bread can be both, esp. in CC doctrine. A bit like is remembrance “passive” or is it “active”? When the Jews observed it after the original, was it to keep death away or was it a remembrance, a commemorization of the original ? Yes, when the Jews observed passover they were blessed and went hand in hand with continuing the "walk with Jehovah), but it was not be “active” like the original night, keeping the angel of death away. In essence the rite is passive, but indirectly it’s fruit it is active (He inhabits the praises of His people, and a rewarder for acts of obedience) . Likewise, the original mass was a “passive” celebration, part of a love feast, a communion meal, where the special “part” of it was the breaking of bread and the cup of wine ritual. Hopefully we concur on this at least in the first century. We do not have records of any “consecration” words like those of today that say, “We offer this(bread and cup) up to you and may you find it acceptable,O Lord”-quite OT. Instead it is a done deal that we don’t offer anything propitiating or appeasing BUT are thankful for what God sacrificed, propitiated for us.The only offering is one of praise.It is passive in that we don’t do it to be saved, accepted but we are actively thankful for being saved, being accepted, not because of participating in remembrance but because of the once only active Calvary. The fathers attest to this ,mentioning “thanksgiving” many times, the bread and the cup mentioned more than blood and body.( at least in the first century). Paul,and Ignatius only mention doing things in order, Ignatius suggesting the meal be run by presbyter, and Paul making no such reference. A later father suggests the presence of a “president”. Have no problem with presbyter for this purpose of “leading”, just don’t think God only honors his eucharist role as God only honored one from the tribe of Levi in OT. Any Christian with leadership capabilities could be appointed by elders or an assembly to preside with the honor from what I read in first hundred years of the church……For sure all this changed, the feast abandoned, the eucharistic prayer added to, role of “ordained” presbyter increasing and even what real presence means. One can not deny the eventual plethara of fathers to attest things to your liking .That is not to say that from time to time it was debated as we do, and way before Luther.

 

[pocohombre]

You do understand the difference between tradition/custom and Sacred Tradition, right?

I think so PR ,I think so. For sure the one father we have been mentioning talks of writ and non-writ and all is carried by the big “T”, but he goes on to list many of the unwritten “things”.

 

[PRmerger]

I think so PR ,I think so. For sure the one father we have been mentioning talks of writ and non-writ and all is carried by the big “T”, but he goes on to list many of the unwritten “things”.

Can you give some examples of what he indicated is Sacred Tradition?

 

[pocohombre]

Can you give some examples of what he indicated is Sacred Tradition?

post 414 listed some along with site that listed mre he said they were unwritten tradition i think

 

[PRmerger]

post 414 listed some along with site that listed mre he said they were unwritten tradition i think

Huh? The only thing that is mentioned is the divinity of Christ.

You believe that is part of Sacred Tradition?

If so,

Can you please give another example of what you view as Sacred Tradition?

“The beauty of St Basil’s approach, one highly relevant to contemporary theology of all Christian persuasions, is that the case for the divinity of Christ, and indeed the Spirit, is presented in such a way that his main thesis is always substantiated with scriptural texts. One such example from ontra Eunomium,woulduffice to demonstrate his scriptural method” academia.edu/1131846/St_Basils_Contribution_to_the_Trinitarian_Doctrine_A_Synthesis_of_Greek_Paideia_and_the_Scriptural_Worldview “Using the authority of Holy Writ, he demonstrated that the Holy Spirit was called Lord and thus ranked no less than the Father and the Son.”…" however, he makes clear that one ought not be content with their (unwriitten traditions) support merely because they are the traditions of the Fathers,but because the Fathers understood and followed the meaning of Holy Scripture ".
“The value of the Fathersand their traditions are precious and useful since they reflect the meaning of Holy Writ”. st-philip.net/files/Fitzgerald%20Patristic%20series/Basil-Great_On_the_Holy_Spirit.pdf
"The best way to discover our duty is to study the divinely inspired Scriptures, for in them we find both instructions about conduct and the lives of blessed men, delivered in writing. They are laid before us like living images of the godly life for the imitation of their good works. When we devote our*selves to the imitation of what is offered there, we find the appropriate medicine for whatever deficiency or illness we feel we have, as from a pharmacy."St. Basil the Great Letters 2:4 … St basil stuck to scripture mostly. Unwritten tradition was ok for him also, and cites many, mostly liturgical and worship-the doxology, the signing of the cross, triple immersion, facing east during prayer. While he brilliantly and inspirationally defended/defined the Trinity with Holy Writ , I believe he erred and layed more groundwork for justifying unwritten practices, which at his time were still minor.

 

[pocohombre]

Huh? The only thing that is mentioned is the divinity of Christ.

You believe that is part of Sacred Tradition?

If so,

Can you please give another example of what you view as Sacred Tradition?

** “St. Basil then begins to cite several unwritten traditions of the Church, mainly concerning Christian worship, which he saw as essential to Christian practice. Some examples of these are:
a)
signing with the
Cross those who are enrolled as catechumens,
b)
the words uttered during the invocation over the eucharistic bread and the cup of blessing which are beyond what one finds in the Gospels and the words
of St. Paul ,
c)
the blessing with oil both of the baptismal water and of the candidate approaching the
font,
d)
triple immersion at baptism,
e)
the renunciation of Satan and his angels,
f)
facing eastward in
prayer because one seeks the Paradise which God planted in the East of Eden, and so forth” st-philip.net/files/Fitzgerald%20Patristic%20series/Basil-Great_On_the_Holy_Spirit.pdf
…This is where conversation started. No capital “T” and not my list , but from St. Basil’s writings on unwritten tradition.The site says the list could be innumerable along with doxology tradition rites,from Eusebius to St Gregory and Syriac etc…**

 

[PRmerger]

** “St. Basil then begins to cite several unwritten traditions of the Church, mainly concerning Christian worship, which he saw as essential to Christian practice. Some examples of these are:
a)
signing with the
Cross those who are enrolled as catechumens,
b)
the words uttered during the invocation over the eucharistic bread and the cup of blessing which are beyond what one finds in the Gospels and the words
of St. Paul ,
c)
the blessing with oil both of the baptismal water and of the candidate approaching the
font,
d)
triple immersion at baptism,
e)
the renunciation of Satan and his angels,
f)
facing eastward in
prayer because one seeks the Paradise which God planted in the East of Eden, and so forth” st-philip.net/files/Fitzgerald%20Patristic%20series/Basil-Great_On_the_Holy_Spirit.pdf**
…This is where conversation started. No capital “T” and not my list , but from St. Basil’s writings on unwritten tradition.The site says the list could be innumerable along with doxology tradition rites,from Eusebius to St Gregory and Syriac etc…

Again, poco, you seem to be unable to distinguish between ST and customs.

The signing of the cross is clearly a custom.

And the use of a capital T is also a custom. It’s just something I have asked you to do to let us know that you understand the difference.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND: customs are NOT Sacred Tradition.

That may be why you have such a hard time accepting the Catholic teaching on ST. You still don’t even know what it is!

 

[pocohombre]

Again, poco, you seem to be unable to distinguish between ST and customs.

The signing of the cross is clearly a custom.

And the use of a capital T is also a custom. It’s just something I have asked you to do to let us know that you understand the difference.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND: customs are NOT Sacred Tradition.

That may be why you have such a hard time accepting the Catholic teaching on ST. You still don’t even know what it is!

maybe not, just reading stuff on St Basil.

 

[PRmerger]

maybe not, just reading stuff on St Basil.

Then how can you object to Sacred Tradition when you don’t even know what it is?

That’s like my saying “I disagree with the Swahili word for closet” when I can’t even articulate what that word is.

 

[spina1953]

Concerning Tradition: The question seems to be is all revealed truth cosigned to Scripture or can it be admitted that Jesus Himself gave to the Apostles to be transmitted to His Church that the Apostles received either from the lips of Jesus Himself or from inspiration or by Revelation; the Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings. It seems to me from reading the New Testament that Jesus made use of Scriptures but did not substitute it for His teaching. He sent the Apostles to preach but did not say to them to write. Those Apostles who did write, did so to supplement their oral teachings, when they themselves were not able to go themselves and were not meant to replace their oral teaching. John the Apostle wrote in His Gospel that not everything that Jesus said and di was written down but that which one might come to believe. (paraphrased). In reading the New Testament it becomes very obvious that Jesus did in fact say and do much more than was written down. It is also very obvious that the New Testament does not record each and every day or minute what Jesus and the Apostles were doing or what was said. Yet, they passed on orally what they were taught by Jesus as well as what the Holy Spirit revealed to them and reminded them of all that Jesus taught them. In those times of the Apostles paper was very expensive and not very easy to obtain. This also one among other reasons why the Apostles did not write everything that was taught them and or reminded to them by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. So to rely only on Scripture only leads to misunderstandings and also misrepresentations of what the Scripture says and means.

 

[pocohombre]

Then how can you object to Sacred Tradition when you don’t even know what it is?

That’s like my saying “I disagree with the Swahili word for closet” when I can’t even articulate what that word is.

Not sure about you, but many don’t what what SS is either.

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure about you, but many don’t what what SS is either.

Since there is none in your world who can speak with authority on the definition of SS, can you give a definition of SS from the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure about you, but many don’t what what SS is either.

And with all due respect, poco, I don’t think even you know what your own def of SS is.

For in one post you will say, “SS just means that teachings can’t contradict Scripture!”

yet in another post you will say, “The Catholic teaching on [A] can’t be found in the Bible!”

To wit, is this not you who said: “The bible does not teach the infallibility of the bishop of Rome.” (answer: yes, it was.)

So even you can’t decide what you mean when you subscribe to the SS paradigm.

Does it mean: all things we believe have to be taught in the Bible?

Or does it mean: we can believe whatever we want, as long as it doesn’t contradict the Bible?

 

[pocohombre]

Since there is none in your world who can speak with authority on the definition of SS, can you give a definition of SS from the Bible?

Oh it has been defined here quite well on posts from last year- I might be out of gas on this topic for now.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh it has been defined here quite well on posts from last year- I might be out of gas on this topic for now.

Yet you can’t decide which is your definition, poco. You keep forgetting that you’ve made one definition, and then appealing to another definition.

Hence, your question about papal infallibility and where it is in the bible. You forgot that at one point you had said that we don’t need to have everything found in the bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh it has been defined here quite well on posts from last year- I might be out of gas on this topic for now.

Incidentally, there are about as many definitions of SS as there are Christian denominations–tens of thousands of them. :sad_yes:

So you’ll have to forgive us Catholics if we don’t know which definition of SS you’re referring to.

And which one you’re accessing at the moment of the conversation, because, as I stated earlier, even each individual here who claims to subscribe to SS seems to change his definition ad lib.