SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[SyroMalankara]

As far as stuff not being in bible as in “Tradition” , well, it still can be true , but to say it is theopneustos , or equal with theopneustsos, is something else.

Why can’t true Sacred Tradition be God-breathed? Sunday worship seems to be one that is from Apostolic time; as are the historically recognized sites in the Holy Land; and much more, such as Liturgy and the historic prayers and practices handed down to our day from the Fathers. How can these, especially the latter, not be equal to Scripture?

 

[rcwitness]

Why can’t true Sacred Tradition be God-breathed? Sunday worship seems to be one that is from Apostolic time; as are the historically recognized sites in the Holy Land; and much more, such as Liturgy and the historic prayers and practices handed down to our day from the Fathers. How can these, especially the latter, not be equal to Scripture?

Cuz then you’d have to rely on an authority to confirm them. Ya know, like how Scripture was confirmed.

 

[benhur]

Why can’t true Sacred Tradition be God-breathed? Sunday worship seems to be one that is from Apostolic time; as are the historically recognized sites in the Holy Land; and much more, such as Liturgy and the historic prayers and practices handed down to our day from the Fathers. How can these, especially the latter, not be equal to Scripture?

HI Sy,

Those are two different questions. “God breathed” is a specific word for “inspiration” that has only described Writ.

As far as "tradition’’ being equal to Writ in terms of normative authority is another question. The earliest fathers did not say well if it is in the liturgy it must be so as much as they said if it is in Writ it must be so.

It is also in the nature of the two. Writ does not evolve. We say it is inerrant, as penned by the writer, that it is “unchanged”. The same can not be said of a more fluid and evolving traditions , even liturgies. The surest normative, doctrinal liturgies,traditions are those found in, established in, Writ.

Again, liturgy and tradition have inspired truths, but they have not been described as “theospneustos”.

Sorry, just see Writ as more distinctly authoritative than a liturgy or tradition. It is like one thing is what the apostles taught, the other what we do with those teachings (celebrate, remember, how we teach them, implement them). What they taught along with their Writ is the fundamental norm. An oral succession of normative truth is good but tough to compete with an inerrant Written succession.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

.The surest normative, doctrinal liturgies,traditions are those found in, established in, Writ.

Because the Canon has been assured you by Tradition and Church authority.

Again, liturgy and tradition have inspired truths, but they have not been described as “theospneustos”.

Is this compatible with…

2 Thessalonians 2:15*

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to thetraditions*which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

An oral succession of normative truth is good but tough to compete with an inerrant Written succession.

Unless you trust the means by through which it comes.

 

[benhur]

Because the Canon has been assured you by Tradition and Church authority.

Hi rc,

And? That is the beauty that something greater (Writ, even the Lord Himself) is entrusted to us. Because the church receives the gift of Writ and helped by tradition, does not necessarily suggest they then have equal authority as that Writ.

is this compatible with…

2 Thessalonians 2:15*

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

Yes. What is the* best *source for the divine revelation of apostolic tradition today, 2000 years after Paul’s oral teaching and written teaching?

Unless you trust the means by through which it comes

Both the oral and written means of revelation are trusted , just differently, distinctly for us today. Now if Paul were alive today and he told you something personally and then in a letter , I would say they are quite equal to you. Just that you and I only have the letter, and somebody 2000 years ago had it also oral.

The best you can say is that we have the oral in writing (not Writ) or liturgy but as Augustine suggests, they are not as superlative to distinct Writ.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

What is the* best *source for the divine revelation of apostolic tradition today, 2000 years after Paul’s oral teaching and written teaching?

The Holy See is the best source to confirm Divine Revelation. Sacred Scripture (with all its correct books AND verses) is Divine revelation (in writing).

“…what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you…”
(Pope Julius I to the Eusebians, Athanasius Apol 35, c. 340 AD)

“…to the head , that is to the See of Peter the Apostle, the bishops of the Lord shall refer from all provinces…”
(orthodox Catholic bishops to Pope Julius I, Council of Sardica, c. 343 AD)

 

[rcwitness]

I am willing to bet, there is just as much, if not more, Scriptural and Traditional support for infant Baptism than there is for a Canon of Scripture, or SS itself.

Yet, many churches who practice SS, reject infant Baptism.

 

[susanlo]

The Holy See is the best source to confirm Divine Revelation. Sacred Scripture (with all its correct books AND verses) is Divine revelation (in writing).

“…what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you…”
(Pope Julius I to the Eusebians, Athanasius Apol 35, c. 340 AD)

“…to the head , that is to the See of Peter the Apostle, the bishops of the Lord shall refer from all provinces…”
(orthodox Catholic bishops to Pope Julius I, Council of Sardica, c. 343 AD)

I am not sure if these quotes are talking about Sacred Tradition. I believe it is about conflicts between Athanasius and other Bishops regarding the Arian controversy. I believe Athanasius was banished by Constantine, and Athanasius was seeking assistance from Julius, Bishop of Rome. It is a more complicated issue than I understand. I am sure others on here understand the issue better than I do. I just don’t know what those writings have to do with the Pope being a holder of Sacred Tradition.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you were getting at.

 

[rcwitness]

I am not sure if these quotes are talking about Sacred Tradition. I believe it is about conflicts between Athanasius and other Bishops regarding the Arian controversy. I believe Athanasius was banished by Constantine, and Athanasius was seeking assistance from Julius, Bishop of Rome. It is a more complicated issue than I understand. I am sure others on here understand the issue better than I do. I just don’t know what those writings have to do with the Pope being a holder of Sacred Tradition.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you were getting at.

Hey susan,
I came across this article which fascinated me. I knew a tiny bit of the controversy, but this article is quite an undertaking of the events surrounding:

philvaz.com/apologetics/num51.htm

I came onto it in a search to learn more about St Athanasius. He was quite the Bishop! And being called the “Father of the Canon” by some sparked my interest once again. And I don’t mind the title given to him, really. Though I believe Oregin did list the complete, correct NT canon even earlier. But aside from his Easter letter (which I still want to read!) he was a central figure of a great controversy splitting up the Bishops, right? The appeal was made to Pope St Julius, and the bishops drew on the Tradition that the See of the Bishop of Rome, is the head of all providences.

I believe Jesus is the source of Divine Revelation. And Scripture is the confirmed written testimony of His Revelation. But God did not fashion Scripture to be alone in judging matters of the faith, since this require interpretation and a counncil, with its own head to confirm and pronounce a verdict. After all, this is how the Canon was eventually established for us. And even though some men, like Oregin and Athanasius had it correct. They were also in communion with the Church. And Athanasius may have consulted with Rome before his Easter letter for all we know. It was Pope Damascus who finally reinstated him and allowed him to act as Bishop again. The next year, he wrote the Easter letter.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The best you can say is that we have the oral in writing (not Writ) or liturgy but as Augustine suggests, they are not as superlative to distinct Writ.

Blessings

What exactly is Writ for you, something abstract or concrete? If concrete, which books?

 

[rcwitness]

What exactly is Writ for you, something abstract or concrete? If concrete, which books?

I’m learning that it was not only the books which had to be discerned and confirmed, but many verses as well!

 

[susanlo]

Hey susan,
I came across this article which fascinated me. I knew a tiny bit of the controversy, but this article is quite an undertaking of the events surrounding:

philvaz.com/apologetics/num51.htm

I came onto it in a search to learn more about St Athanasius. He was quite the Bishop! And being called the “Father of the Canon” by some sparked my interest once again. And I don’t mind the title given to him, really. Though I believe Oregin did list the complete, correct NT canon even earlier. But aside from his Easter letter (which I still want to read!) he was a central figure of a great controversy splitting up the Bishops, right? The appeal was made to Pope St Julius, and the bishops drew on the Tradition that the See of the Bishop of Rome, is the head of all providences.

I believe Jesus is the source of Divine Revelation. And Scripture is the confirmed written testimony of His Revelation. But God did not fashion Scripture to be alone in judging matters of the faith, since this require interpretation and a counncil, with its own head to confirm and pronounce a verdict. After all, this is how the Canon was eventually established for us. And even though some men, like Oregin and Athanasius had it correct. They were also in communion with the Church. And Athanasius may have consulted with Rome before his Easter letter for all we know. It was Pope Damascus who finally reinstated him and allowed him to act as Bishop again. The next year, he wrote the Easter letter.

Thank you for your explanation.

 

[benhur]

What exactly is Writ for you, something abstract or concrete? If concrete, which books?

Hi S,

Shall I say it is "immaterial "to the dialogue ? Even those who determined canon would agree Sacred Scriptures is the traditional, distinct, superlative norm. They did not view themselves as equal or even above that which they discerned/canonized.

Blessings

 

[clem456]

Hi S,

Shall I say it is "immaterial "to the dialogue ? Even those who determined canon would agree Sacred Scriptures is the traditional, distinct, superlative norm. They did not view themselves as equal or even above that which they discerned/canonized.

Blessings

Which is why they took it upon their persons to make determinations about what was superlative and distinct etc…?
Sorry, the contradiction just begs the observation…

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hi S,

Shall I say it is "immaterial "to the dialogue ? Even those who determined canon would agree Sacred Scriptures is the traditional, distinct, superlative norm. They did not view themselves as equal or even above that which they discerned/canonized.

Blessings

So what Writ is doesn’t matter as long as it is invoked as superior in authority? That doesn’t make much sense. In that case the Quran, Bhagvad Gita, etc can all be invoked by their respective faithful and the ‘agree to disagree’ or “you’re insane” arguments start to fly

 

[rcwitness]

Hi S,

Shall I say it is "immaterial "to the dialogue ? Even those who determined canon would agree Sacred Scriptures is the traditional, distinct, superlative norm. They did not view themselves as equal or even above that which they discerned/canonized.

Blessings

I agree.

Scripture is an uncontested source of Divine Revelation. It is materially sufficient to guide us in all matters of faith.

If SS is defined by things that St Athanasius, St Jerome, and St Augustine have expressed, then I agree with SS. And if SS is practiced like these men practiced, i am all for it!

 

[rcwitness]

Is infant Baptism encouraged, or discouraged by Scripture? The answer is formally insufficiently clear from Scripture alone.

Or when two or more Bishops disagree (over Scripture) with two or more Bishops, who are the members to adhere to? What becomes of the children (and their children) who follow the Bishops in error?

And the irony is that Scripture provides us with an answer in Jesus giving Peter with such a distinct role! But Tradition is necessary to see this through. Scripture is not explicit regarding Apostolic succession, or Peter’s presence and death in Rome, or even his association with Linus.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Is infant Baptism encouraged, or discouraged by Scripture? The answer is formally insufficiently clear from Scripture alone.

Or when two or more Bishops disagree (over Scripture) with two or more Bishops, who are the members to adhere to? What becomes of the children (and their children) who follow the Bishops in error?

And the irony is that Scripture provides us with an answer in Jesus giving Peter with such a distinct role! But Tradition is necessary to see this through. Scripture is not explicit regarding Apostolic succession, or Peter’s presence and death in Rome, or even his association with Linus.

Exactly, scripture came from apostolic tradition. We need both to get the full understanding of the Word.

The problem is, and I know this as a former protestant…that word “tradition” is like a curse word coming from that side. Jesus spoke very harshly about tradition…man made tradition of the Jews. So it’s extremely difficult for non-Catholic Christians to trust in Catholic…or any form of tradition.

 

[clem456]

Exactly, scripture came from apostolic tradition. We need both to get the full understanding of the Word.

The problem is, and I know this as a former protestant…that word “tradition” is like a curse word coming from that side. Jesus spoke very harshly about tradition…man made tradition of the Jews. So it’s extremely difficult for non-Catholic Christians to trust in Catholic…or any form of tradition.

People sometimes cling to a point of view rather than sound reason. We all do it. I don’t seem to understand the SS point of view the way protestants do.
Protestants don’t seem to understand the personalist mature of Tradition, or at least the necessitated continuity of it.

 

[susanlo]

I agree.

Scripture is an uncontested source of Divine Revelation. It is materially sufficient to guide us in all matters of faith.

If SS is defined by things that St Athanasius, St Jerome, and St Augustine have expressed, then I agree with SS. And if SS is practiced like these men practiced, i am all for it!

How would you describe the definition and practice of sola scriptura with these 3 early theologians?