That is a brilliant arguement - i just have one bit of clarification and i must agree that it may have the properties of sounding absurd but i beg that you suffer me a bit.@ Bobby:
In re. Tradition (your question in general) vis a vis sola scriptura and my last post:
According to scripture itself–particularly the New Testament–one fact is undeniable: Tradition predates scripture.
NOTE:
I could go on, but I believe less should serve as more here.
- Christ did not hand his Apostles, a Bible.
- In fact, Christ didn’t write anything down, AT ALL. This is staggering, in light of the ‘lost/found in the Temple’ episode. Jesus Christ is found in the Temple–when he was around 13 years old–lecturing the Church elders about scripture. Clearly, this child prodigy was learned and well read–and yet, Christ never wrote anything down at all–other than in the sand, with a stick.
- Christ never prophsizes the Bible. Never mentions such a thing at all.
- Though he does prophesize his Church (e.g.–"…thou art Peter (Petros) and upon this rock I shall build my Church").
- Chirst passes his Faith system on to his followers–the Aposltes–orally. He expressly instucts them to do the same. They do. They expessly instruct their followers to do the same. That is and yields, Tradition.
- The Bible distinguishes between "Apostles’ and ‘disciples’. All Apostles are included as Christ’s disciples; not all disciples are Apostles. The Apostles are the 12–then minus Judas, then plus his successor (name eludes me now), then laater, plus Paul. This distinction signifies a ‘hierarchy’. The replacement of Judas, and the later addition of St. Paul, signifies succession (and growth). This is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
- There is no Bible at the time of the Pentacost, nor for centuries afterwards;
- Nor even mention of a thing known as a ‘bible’, in the Bible (let alone ‘sola scriptura’). Not in the Gospels; not in the Acts of the Apostles; not in any letter by St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter, or anyone else. Hence the very concept of a ‘Bible’ at all, is the friut of the Church that Christ founded–i.e.–the fruit of Tradition.
- Note: re. reference to ‘scripture’ in the Bible–this refers to then existing scritpure; there is no express reference to scripture which will come into being; that only becomes so, through Tradition.
Peace.
Was not Peter’s first sermon beautiful - he quoted Joel and David. This is what i am saying - that even JESUS appealed to scripture when HE spoke - so when you ask me about authority, i agree that there is hard evidence for authority and that being the authority of scripture.@ Bobby:
In re. Tradition (your question in general) vis a vis sola scriptura and my last post:
According to scripture itself–particularly the New Testament–one fact is undeniable: Tradition predates scripture.
NOTE:
I could go on, but I believe less should serve as more here.
- Christ did not hand his Apostles, a Bible.
- In fact, Christ didn’t write anything down, AT ALL. This is staggering, in light of the ‘lost/found in the Temple’ episode. Jesus Christ is found in the Temple–when he was around 13 years old–lecturing the Church elders about scripture. Clearly, this child prodigy was learned and well read–and yet, Christ never wrote anything down at all–other than in the sand, with a stick.
- Christ never prophsizes the Bible. Never mentions such a thing at all.
- Though he does prophesize his Church (e.g.–"…thou art Peter (Petros) and upon this rock I shall build my Church").
- Chirst passes his Faith system on to his followers–the Aposltes–orally. He expressly instucts them to do the same. They do. They expessly instruct their followers to do the same. That is and yields, Tradition.
- The Bible distinguishes between "Apostles’ and ‘disciples’. All Apostles are included as Christ’s disciples; not all disciples are Apostles. The Apostles are the 12–then minus Judas, then plus his successor (name eludes me now), then laater, plus Paul. This distinction signifies a ‘hierarchy’. The replacement of Judas, and the later addition of St. Paul, signifies succession (and growth). This is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
- There is no Bible at the time of the Pentacost, nor for centuries afterwards;
- Nor even mention of a thing known as a ‘bible’, in the Bible (let alone ‘sola scriptura’). Not in the Gospels; not in the Acts of the Apostles; not in any letter by St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter, or anyone else. Hence the very concept of a ‘Bible’ at all, is the friut of the Church that Christ founded–i.e.–the fruit of Tradition.
- Note: re. reference to ‘scripture’ in the Bible–this refers to then existing scritpure; there is no express reference to scripture which will come into being; that only becomes so, through Tradition.
Peace.
Thank you for the ‘brilliant’ part–though it wasn’t really an ‘arguement’ --just a series of scripture based observations–pretty basic ones, at that–that speak to Tradition–in fact, lend themselves rather strongly to, Tradition.That is ***a brilliant arguement ***- i just have one bit of clarification and i must agree that it may have the properties of sounding absurd but i beg that you suffer me a bit.
You mentioned that tradition preceded the new testament (scripture), so where is this Scripture- preceded Tradition recorded?
The problem with ‘perfect harmony’ between scripture and Tradition, is that scripture is open to interpretation (also the fundamental problem with sola scriptura). In answer to that question, I’d suggest that the Church Fathers, the Saints, the Magesterium, and the Popes, have always strived for perfect harmony with scripture–though there isn’t even ‘perfect harmony’ amongst the various sources of Tradition. Quite frankly, I believe ‘perfect harmony’ is an impossible standard. The Church is a human institution. Guided by the Holy Spirit, yes. But comprised of human beings–therefore incapable of achieving perfection.Was not Peter’s first sermon beautiful - he quoted Joel and David. This is what i am saying - that even JESUS appealed to scripture when HE spoke - so when you ask me about authority, i agree that there is hard evidence for authority and that being the authority of scripture.
Again, i still maintain that i am open ot accepting Tradition if there is perfect harmony between the Tradition and Scripture.
I am so open to Tradition that i used the guidnace provided for in this thread and formulated an arguement that is pro-Tradition
just one question though - my education on scripture/ Tradition also pointed out that although they both originated from the same source, they are both distinctively different. please confirm for me if this statement is true or that scripture was once Tradition that was recorded and it is now used as the Holy Scripture.
Can you visualise the magnitude of my confusion?
I am going to humbly appeal to you to please help me through this - remember i did say atht i am open to the **doctrine/ idea/ practice **of Tradition as well. Please do not read too much into the emphaised part - i was not sure what to call it and i am happy to agree to any label.Thank you for the ‘brilliant’ part–though it wasn’t really an ‘arguement’ --just a series of scripture based observations–pretty basic ones, at that–that speak to Tradition–in fact, lend themselves rather strongly to, Tradition.
As for where the ‘script. preceded’ Tradition is recorded–various sources. Naturally, there are the texts which made the Cannon. But there are also many sources which didn’t, yet still provide guidance on scripture, and Traditoin–e.g. the Didache, and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, among others.
The problem with ‘perfect harmony’ between scripture and Tradition, is that scripture is open to interpretation (also the fundamental problem with sola scriptura). In answer to that question, I’d suggest that the Church Fathers, the Saints, the Magesterium, and the Popes, have always strived for perfect harmony with scripture–though there isn’t even ‘perfect harmony’ amongst the various sources of Tradition. Quite frankly, I believe ‘perfect harmony’ is an impossible standard. The Church is a human institution. Guided by the Holy Spirit, yes. But comprised of human beings–therefore incapable of achieving perfection.
That said–imperfection notwithstanding–there is coherence, cooperation, and harmony in conjunction between the two. Sacred Tradition sheds light on Sacred Scripture; and Sacred Scripture sheds light on Sacred Tradition; and each keeps the other, in check. ST keeps SS from being interpretted 10,000 different and/or conflicting ways; while SS grounds ST from going too far off the reservation, so to speak. Anecdotally: I don’t know if you’ve ever had occasion to read any of the writings of the Popes–but they are firmly grounded in scripture. Seems every other sentence has a biblical citation…
Now, back to the question you needed me to clarify–I’ll try yet again, to simplify it further still:
When or how–that is, by what event or person–claiming or otherwise amounting to 'Divine Revelation’–was the Church that was born on the Pentacost, and to which the Bible was entrusted–supposedly DIVESTED of the authority with which she was invested, at the Pentacost?
Seems to me rather logical–nay, Biblical–that if God invested something or someone with authority, it would take nothing shy of Divine Revelation (or direct Divine intervention) to divest it/him/her of such authority. No?
When did this supposedly happen to the ONE Church, going into the Reformation?
What became of that One Church?
Bobby:@ Bobby:
Now, back to my question:
When or how–by what event or person–claiming or otherwise amounting to 'Divine Revelation’–was the Church that was born on the Pentacost, and to which the Bible was entrusted–supposedly DIVESTED of the authority with which she was invested, at the Pentacost?
Are you avoiding the question?
Acknowleding that no such divine revelation/divestiture of authority exists?
Or do you contend that no such divine revelation was necessary? If so…how do you figure?
I know you’ve stated that you are ‘open to Tradition’–but that’s not really answering my question).
très bien écrit Goya!(french)the question you asked has very serious theological implications for protestants so i think you should start a new thread just on that question.it will help alot of people on this forum.Goodluck!Bobby:
FWIW: I didn’t mean to run you off (if that’s what’s going on here). I know it’s a tough question–you don’t need to answer it. I posed it to you, because you seemed to have a fresh perspective. This question is the brick wall I ran into, when I was considering protestantism (my wife is protestant). In my discussions with her, her family, and other protestants, I got an earful of ‘Bible’–but I kept asking: “but how do we get to sola scriptura?” For which I was treated with a bungh of ‘non-answers’. So I took to resarching on my own…and couldn’t find an answer. The question, as I posed it to you, is a essentially a refinement of that question–that is, of what I needed, in order to accept SS.
Without some sort of Divine Revelation to bolster it, it is but a ‘tradition of men’, an intellectual concotion that has no biblical basis (Ironic, no?).
The bottom line–for me, and for most Catholics–is that Christ left us a Church, not a book, or even a set of books. That Church may have developed some ‘warts’ and the like along the way–but it remains the Church that Christ founded.
Just like the Jews before us–the Jews ‘fell’ many times (e.g.–constructing idols, as Moses was on Mount Sinai, being given the 10 commandments)–yet they remained God’s chosen people…until something Divine came along, and changed that. Sometime between the crucifixion and the Pentacost…rather someone.
Still the Jews were welcome and invited…but still, they chose to remain Jewish, rather than coming to the light…so Jesus’ Apostles brought the light to the gentiles (though many Jews did follow).
This episode represents a Divine changing of the guard.
I haven’t found anything of the sort to bolster such a ‘changing of the guard’ from the Church that Christ founded–which incidentally, yielded the Bible (or, if you prefer–to whom the Bible was entrusted)–to a new ‘people’. No divine divestiture of authority; no divine expression or revelation of a change of order–nothing of the sort–which seems to me, would be required, to accept that the Church from which Luther et. al. defected, was somehow no longer the Church that Chirst founded, no longer the fiduciary of the Word of God, no longer the fiduciary of the Faith.
Heytrès bien écrit Goya!(french)the question you asked has very serious theological implications for protestants so i think you should start a new thread just on that question.it will help alot of people on this forum.Goodluck!
Great! I’m glad I didn’t run you off–had me concerned there for a bit… The last thing I want to do, is smother anyone’s zeal for Truth.Hey
No Problem and you did not run me off - i am too foolish to run away even though i may be losing lol. however, i have also realised that even though i may not fully comprehend something now does not mean that that thing is incomprehendible. You see, i have no problems in admiting that i do not know everything that is to be known and i am foolishly brave enough to admit that what i know is so little that there is no yardstick that can measure the quantity or quality of the known knowledge. But one thing i must also admit to is that i have developed an insatiable appetite for knowledge. SO much so that am prepared to literally scrape it of people’s brains (okay bit extreme here - but i hope you get the picture about me). Hey i also have questions that many people could not answer - that does not make me right.
GOD bless you even as you have sent me on another journey.