Sola Scripturist Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter StAugustine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAugustine said:
Of course, and absolutely, the Bible is the sole possession of the Church that is God breathed, and therefore ontologically superior to either tradition or the magisterium.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t you say that Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition? I mean, the faith lived and flourished before the Bible as we know it was even put together. Even after it was put into the form that we know it, it’s not like people were walking around with it. Eric Jenislawski - Forming Sacred Scripture: Understanding How the Bible Came to Be (from the Institute of Catholic Culture).

Secondly, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
  • in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34
I don’t see one being superior over the other.

ZP
 
2 Thessalonians 2

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
 
And the Protestant reply is…

You assume these traditions are something OTHER than the content of Pauls gospel. Rather, prove this tradition is another source of revelation as opposed to simply the oral proclamation of what is already IN scripture.
 
Well it’s simple- Scripture alone is God-breathed, Tradition is the practical application and interpretation of that which is God-breathed and the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium and ensures that tradition conforms to that which is God-breathed.

So it is quite simple to put the primacy of place on scripture, as it deserves since it is the testimony of Gods faithfulness to his covenants.
 
Is there an example you can offer?

An oral Sacred Tradition not found in Scripture?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the Protestants dispute it because it isn’t in scripture.

So the Catholic holds the immaculate conception as a dogma, and as such we believe it was taught by the apostles.

Ok, which apostles in which church, and where is the substantially identical teaching? Show me the IC’s apostolic pedigree.

Unfortunately, we can’t, and so they make the point it isn’t really apostolic then, is it?
 
I will read the constitution soon.

I would think all Apostles were aware of the IC.
 
StAugustine said:
Yes, but the Protestants dispute it because it isn’t in scripture.
Click to expand...
I think protestants forget how much work was done to get to that which they do accept. It took 400 hard years of pounding out “basic” concepts that are “in the bible” such as who Jesus is, whether or not He has two natures. And the trinity. Those are NOT small things. This is exactly the point people are trying to make I think. We shouldn’t be shocked if the apostles weren’t trying to sign the Queenship of Mary into doctrine when they hadn’t been able to come to a consensus on who Jesus is in some pretty fundamental ways. But don’t take our tradition for granted. Much of what we believe is by no means clear from the Bible. Without Sacred Tradition, I’d argue, one could support plenty of heresy with the bible just ask the Arians, or Protestants, or Donatists, or, or, or… Yes they solved these issues somewhat with scripture, but without the orthodox inertia left behind by the Apostles we would probably all be heretics right now.

I’ll say again, there is plenty of heresy that one could find support for in the Bible. The Bible norms the tradition and the tradition norms the bible. That’s the EXACT problem with ‘sola scriptura.’ It’s both.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but here is the Protestant deathblow-

THe great reformed apologist, James White, himself acknowledges that the Jews laid up in the temple the sacred books, the Tanakh.

He therefore admits that it is in the liturgical context of ancient Israel that the true books were to be determined. In the Christian era, that criteria did not change, those books were accounted canonical that were in use by the Jews and read for instruction in the Church (The Deuterocanon). Therefore, Israel being a type of the Church, and the temple services being the prefigurement of the Christian service, coming to a sure knowledge of the canon cannot be had apart from the HOly Spirits work of discernment in guiding the Church.

BUT, if that’s true in regard to the canon, it must be true in regard to other dogmatic issues, otherwise, if the Church can get matters of dogmatic significance WRONG, not only the Church defects, but the reasons to accept the canon defect and scripture falls into the realm of human best guess.

But indeed, allow me to concede to you that Sola Scriptura is good and desirable, let us ask the question-

“In whose hands? And why?”
 
Of course they were known, but by the members of the apostolic church IN the apostolic church.

Let me rephrase it this way- The Samaritans were heretics and schismatics, but they practiced circumcision, the Passover, and came to their understanding by their own particular reading of the Torah, while rejecting the rest of the Hebrew old testament.

Were they entitled to take this individualistic approach to the scripture and establish unauthorized parallel rites outside the usage God established with Moses David and Solomon?
If yes, why? If no, why? Were the Samaritans heirs of the covenant?
 
Last edited:
Maybe someone like Apollos?

Acts 18

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.
 
Uh, do you realize the distinction between “whoever is not against me is for me” and “whoever is not for me is against me”?

Those who work for Christ and love him while being inculpably ignorant of theological realities do not oppose him.

But those who fight against him and his church are opposed to him.
 
The point is did the Samaritans of Jesus’ time have the right to take scripture and use it contrary to the Law of God given to Moses and the Psalms and the Prophets- positively rejecting them even whilst remaining apart from those to whom God has given his covenant?

Was it a right they legitimately laid claim to?
 
Ok- now why was it illegitimate? For all of the above reasons, right? They had separated from the covenant people and privately reinterpreted the notion of the covenant and even distorted its liturgical expressions.

Correct?
 
Good-

So, if these acts are illegitimate precisely because they are the acts of those who have separated themselves from the Covenant people of God, how much more illegitimate are the acts of Protestants who FLED from the Church, REFUSED to accept her correction, failed to obey Christ by submitting to legitimate correction (“let them hear the Church”) and altered her rites and scriptures?

Same thing. What discernment can be had by those cut off from the body?
 
Tradition is supported biblically throughout the old and New Testament. Here is a good example and you can find many others with a search in google.
[2 Thessalonians 2:15

(So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.)

This and other verses indicate that traditions were passed along and down using word of mouth, and that not all teachings are locked into the canon of the Bible but also in the traditions of the church.
 
What in the text suggests the tradition is at all different from the content IN the Scriptures though?

It’s an assumption.
 
Last edited:
It suggests that there were teachings that were passed on verbally that were not contained in the letters. As do many other scriptures contained throughout the Bible and the teachings of the early church fathers.
There is nowhere in the Bible that limits the teachings of Christ to the scriptures. Sola Scriptura itself is not a biblical teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top