The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[Philthy]

p90:

Is this evidence of an oral tradition traceable to the apostles? Not as it currently stands. How do we know that these fathers are quoting the very words of the apostles and not simply summing their understanding of the written word? And the Catechism? How would you show a skeptic of oral tradition that the information “not explicitly stated in Scripture” came directly from the apostles’ oral teaching?

Please remember that I’m looking for oral traditions that are independent of the Scriptures. Providing traditions that are found in the Scriptures misses the point of our discussion in finding the extra-Scriptural word of God that Protestants fail to follow.

~Matt

Ok Matt, so when I initially brought up the Real Presence as an oral tradition, instead of asking me how you could verify it, why didn’t you just say that it doesn’t constitute an oral tradition in your mind?! As it stands, it would appear that we’ve wasted each other’s time on the issue because now that its been demonstrated how the tradition can be verified (which was prompted by your request to know how to verify it), you are no longer interested in verifying it because you now feel it’s not an oral tradition! It would have made more sense to just say that from the very beginning. Don’t worry though, no time has been wasted - we’ve just drifted onto a subtelty that needs to be covered. You’re objecting that because the Real Presence can be surmised from Scripture that it can no longer represent an oral tradition, but merely ranks as one of the various interpretations offered over time. That assumption however, is invalid. Have you ever considered that perhaps the oral Tradition of the Real Presence preceded Scripture and continues to this day as the proper interpretation of Scripture? It makes perfect sense. Why else would the Church hold to it? There are good reasons intellectually to hold several opinions on the subject and if we are left simply to our intellect, there might not be a definitive position (that’s the status within Protestantism). But the Church has unwaveringly held what was handed down to it as an oral Tradition and has subsequently developed the comprehensive Scriptural basis for the belief which corresponds perfectly with the ECFs. And again, this is not to say that this belief would be overtly surmisable from Scripture alone - others would be equally tenable - but that together with Scripture and Tradition it’s truth is revealed.:ehh:

 

[Tim_Hayes]

The easiest way for those who don’t believe in oral tradtion to check their belief in just using the bible is to check back on what the earliest Christians believed. Anti catholic historians like Phillip SCHAFF admit that Saint Ambrose for eg.believed in teh real presence of Chist in the Eucharist and confirms that Ambrose was saying that was the belief and practice of the day in the Christian Church, now Ambrose was around int he 300’s. Now the other thing is that there is next to know arguments to be found in history where early Christians are fighting over a “real” presence or symbolic presence, thus further indicating that “real” presence was always the norm.

The reason I say this is because if anyone wants to use scripture alone then they must point to the early Christians who had basicaly exactly the same belief on at the very least major doctrines of importance as they do now. If that is not found then scripture is obviously at the very least not clear. If it is not clear and that is all that is being used to decide on Christian beliefs and practcies then what hope in hell do any of us have in findign the truth.

All you non cahtolics who don’t believe in oral tradtion please point out the early Christians, whose beliefs we can check on to see that they have the same beliefs as modern day non catholics.

In Christ

Tim

 

[p90]

MariaG:

The problem is Matt, that I honestly can’t think of a Tradition of the Church that does not have some basis in Scripture.

If that is the case, that is fine. I just don’t understand why Protestants are told to hold fast to the oral traditions if the Scriptures are sufficient to present those teachings which are contained in the oral deposit (if this is not what you’re saying with the word “basis,” please correct me on the matter).

~Matt

 

[p90]

I don’t have time to proof this.

Philthy:

Ok Matt, so when I initially brought up the Real Presence as an oral tradition, instead of asking me how you could verify it, why didn’t you just say that it doesn’t constitute an oral tradition in your mind?!

When you intially raised the real presence, I was interested in how to verify oral tradition in general. It was unimportant to me, at that particular point in the discussion, which oral tradition you were talking about. Rather, the process by which the validity of a particular oral tradition was determined was the goal.

You’re objecting that because the Real Presence can be surmised from Scripture that it can no longer represent an oral tradition, but merely ranks as one of the various interpretations offered over time.

No, the first and primary issue, after the Papacy, was to present oral traditions independent from the Scriptures. After all, if certain oral traditions can be found in the Scripture, I am not interested in them, for their teaching is accessable to me.

The issue of multiple interpretations ties into the verification process and is not to be confused with the stipulation I made regarding which oral traditions I was originally interested in.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

Matt,

posted by p90
If that is the case, that is fine. I just don’t understand why Protestants are told to hold fast to the oral traditions if the Scriptures are sufficient to present those teachings which are contained in the oral deposit (if this is not what you’re saying with the word “basis,” please correct me on the matter).

Because Scripture alone can bring up interpretations that were not taught by the apostles. For example, the Real Presence of Christ. In the Catholic Church as you know, we believe in this. Why? Because of Scripture and Tradition. Many Protestants do not believe in it. Why? Because they rely only on Scripture alone. If people are honest, they can see that both interpretations can be seen in Scripture. So how do we know who is right? People on both sides can talk about what language it was written in, , blah blah blah. Luther said this, Wesley said this, Calvin said this. (I guess since Lutherans believe in the Real Presence this may be a bad example, but you get the idea ) The Holy Spirit led me, ( clearly the Holy Spirit only led one interpretation the other is being misled.)

Ultimately, protestants do look to people for their interpretation of Scripture. Why are people who interpret Scripture 1500 years after the fact more valuable than those who talked to the Apostles? (My still functioning Protestant brain is screaming no we look to God for interpretation. We get it from the Holy Spirit. But can’t you see that this same claim can be made of the Catholic Church but we can trace our beginnings and teaching back to the time of the apostles?)

As a convert/revert, I still look at things from a “show it to me in the Bible” kind of way. I have found all of the Catholic beliefs based in the Bible. And ultimately for me, the question was very simple: Why are Protestant interpreters more correct than Catholic ones? Both can show most of their beliefs in the Bible. However there is one big exception. I can show you Scripture that talks of oral tradition, but Protestants can’t show me from Scripture where it says follow the Bible alone.

Maybe the defintion of oral Tradition should be thought less as “extra” stuff that is not contained in Scripture, but more of proper interpretation of what was written down.

Ultimately for me, it comes down to faith. Faith in God. Would God entrust His written word to an unreliable source that puts their own interpretation on things to “grab power” or can we trust God to keep His Church teachings Holy? (Notice this does not address the corruption of people only the corruption of His teachings)

In my saving Grace sermon, the pastor said either you believe the Bible 100%, (and immediately I started saying things like yeah but it was in the hands of men, blah blah blah) or we have nothing else to talk about. Either you believe the Bible and the promises in the Bible about His people and His Church apply to the Catholic Church, or you have to start making excuses on why they don’t apply to the Catholic Church.

Jn 16:12 - 15 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;…”

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[destrecht]

re.

I have a question, Can you produce for me a teaching of Jesus Christ or of Paul (the latter being traceable to the New Testament church to which he wrote 2 Thessalonians) that exists independently of the written record? If you can, I would be much more open to the existence of an oral tradition handed down.

 

[destrecht]

I have a question, Can you produce for me a teaching of Jesus Christ or of Paul (the latter being traceable to the New Testament church to which he wrote 2 Thessalonians) that exists independently of the written record? If you can, I would be much more open to the existence of an oral tradition handed down.

Well not exactly, but in one of Paul letters - I think it’s 1st Corinthians- he talks about his previous letter, I can’t remeber right off who it was to, but it was a “1st letter to…”

Chris

 

[destrecht]

destrecht:

re.

I have a question, Can you produce for me a teaching of Jesus Christ or of Paul (the latter being traceable to the New Testament church to which he wrote 2 Thessalonians) that exists independently of the written record? If you can, I would be much more open to the existence of an oral tradition handed down.

 

[destrecht]

If there are other things on this line and I’m repeating myself, please bear with me- this is my first day here

But the answer I was giving was that Paul alludes to an earlier letter in one of his “First letter to…” letters. Maybe someone else can provide the exact verse?

but besides that, there are many instances of using oral tradition. An example of this is the rock that followed them around- there is nothing in the old testament that mentions this.

God Bless, Chris

 

[OriginalJS]

This argument has a certain amount of attractiveness but is subject to logical and reasonable attack. If it is accepted that the scriptures are either inerrant or infallible and are truly the Word of God then what? It is not reasonable to say that the Church wrote the scriptures or is in some way superior to the scriptures. It is reasonable to say that the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit was shown which of the writings presented were sacred scripture.

It seems to me that the only solid answer to the sola scriptura argument is that the Church retains sole authority to construe the scriptures.

 

[Sherlock]

Destrecht,

You asked " I have a question, Can you produce for me a teaching of Jesus Christ or of Paul (the latter being traceable to the New Testament church to which he wrote 2 Thessalonians) that exists independently of the written record?"

Isn’t the passage in Acts 20:35 an indication of that? "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ " That phrase of Jesus isn’t in the Gospels.

 

[p90]

Sherlock:

Isn’t the passage in Acts 20:35 an indication of that? "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ " That phrase of Jesus isn’t in the Gospels.

I believe Destrecht was quoting my question and responding to it. In the question I asked for oral tradition independent of the written record. Acts 20:35 is the written record.

~Matt

 

[p90]

destrecht:

But the answer I was giving was that Paul alludes to an earlier letter in one of his “First letter to…” letters. Maybe someone else can provide the exact verse?

I’m not asking for references to oral tradition; I’m asking for that oral tradition to be produced for critique and possible life changes. Do you know what Paul wrote (is writing oral?) in the now lost letter?

but besides that, there are many instances of using oral tradition. An example of this is the rock that followed them around- there is nothing in the old testament that mentions this.

How are we aware of these oral traditions? If it’s through the written word of God, then the criteria I have set is not being met (not that this is a significant problem).

~Matt

 

[Philthy]

p90:

I’m not asking for references to oral tradition; I’m asking for that oral tradition to be produced for critique and possible life changes. Do you know what Paul wrote (is writing oral?) in the now lost letter?

How are we aware of these oral traditions? If it’s through the written word of God, then the criteria I have set is not being met (not that this is a significant problem).

~Matt

Matt - I can’t believe you’re still going on this! OK. You’re looking for something that isn’t in Scripture at all? As Maria and I have both told you, the existence of the correct interpretation of Scripture (for instance, the real presence) is an example of oral tradition. But you choose not to accept it as such. How about the Assumption. Don’t think that’s anywhere. Mary was assumed into Heaven. Now what!? Critique of oral tradition? How would you “critique” one of the Apostles telling you a truth? How would you “critique” a student of one of the Apostles who gave you an oral tradition? Ignatius, student of St.John, spoke of the Real Presence - how does critiquing even apply? I hope this is fruitful.

Phil

 

[p90]

Philthy:

As Maria and I have both told you, the existence of the correct interpretation of Scripture (for instance, the real presence) is an example of oral tradition. But you choose not to accept it as such.

With different, competing interpretations of, for example, the real presence, how do we determine which is the true oral tradition and which is a misinterpretation?

I don’t think I rejected the examples you gave, but asked this type of question instead. You’re welcome to quote my words to show otherwise.

How would you “critique” one of the Apostles telling you a truth? How would you “critique” a student of one of the Apostles who gave you an oral tradition? Ignatius, student of St.John, spoke of the Real Presence - how does critiquing even apply? I hope this is fruitful.

Please don’t confuse determining whether or not a source truly comes from the Apostles with determining whether or not the contents of a source are true. Unlike 2,000 years ago, I do not have direct access to the Apostles physical voices and conversations. I would like to know if what is claimed to be an oral tradition really is an oral tradition.

~Matt

 

[RMP]

Just another example of an ORAL TRADITION, from a letter written about 70 years after Christs death by the 3rd Bishop of Antioch on his way to be martyred in ROME. BISHOP (shows authority) IGNATIUS writes on the REAL PRESCENSE: He talks about christain unity then continues “Let no one be under any illusion; a man who excludes himself from the SANTUARY (the ALTER, hence a priesthood is present) is depriving himself of the BREAD of GOD (flesh and blood), for if prayer of one or two individuals has efficacy, how much more powerful is that of the BISHOP together with the whole church. Anyone who is absent from the concregation (the MASS maybe. u think?) CONVICTS himself at once of arrogance and becomes Selfexcummunicate (no one is thrown out of the Catholic Church)…Faith is the beginning, and LOVE is the end. A tree is known by its fruits (not its faith alone)…attend your meeting in a state of GRACE (wow what does this mean. After all, Didnt Luther say we are all totally depraved)… obey your Bishop and CLERGY (a hiearchy? no can’t be) with undivided minds (undivided minds!!..thats a new one for protestants) and to share in the ONE common breaking of bread - the MEDICINE OF IMMORTALITY, the sovereign remedy in which we ESCAPE death and live with JESUS for ever more.” (WOW, this guy is deep. CAN U SAY CATHOLIC?)

another oral tradition passed on was Mary’s virginity, and her conception by the HOLY spirit. Certainly this was believed before it was written.

humbly RMP brushes sand of his sandels and leaves town knowing all IGNATIUS’s words will fall upon deaf ears.

 

[mercygate]

Ladies and gentlemen. Oral tradition? The Tradition is not exclusively oral. That is why we look to the writings of the Fathers and the history of the Church.

p90: re: “competing interpretations of real presence.” We need to take a step back. It seems that one of the obstacles for Protestants with developed doctrines is that history – for most Protestants – goes directly from the Acts of the Apostles to about 1500 with almost nothing in between.

The early Church, without any doubt, believed in the real Presence; the written evidence is all over the place. But as for “competing interpretations,” that is a different matter. To this day the Orthodox do not define how the Eucharistic Presence is real.

The Church does not rule on “competing interpretations” unless the need arises. In this case, the first dialog was in the 9th Century. The doctrine of Transubstantiation as we know it today was finally worked through and confirmed (only as a way of ruling out interpretations that would lead to heretical thinking) at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

Hope this is light and not heat.

 

[p90]

mercygate:

Ladies and gentlemen. Oral tradition? The Tradition is not exclusively oral. That is why we look to the writings of the Fathers and the history of the Church.

It would be helpful if you proposed a way to figure out what is and what isn’t “oral” tradition.

But as for “competing interpretations,” that is a different matter.

It’s relevant to the topic. If the “real presence” is interpreted in different ways by different fathers, how do you determine which fathers faithfully handed down the “oral” tradition from the Apostles?

~Matt

 

[mayra_hart]

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates tradition. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

 

[RMP]

ORAL … Tradition.

Although the church professes the neccessity of this truth, I dont think it has ever been formally defined. The reason is it is practically undefinable. This is my own opinion as I understand it, It may not be correct. So I will admit submission to Rome if I need to be corrected. Although undefinable in a formal way, IT has always been held as a belief.
Its alot like infallabilty. How do you prove a negative? How can I prove the church will not fail in teaching matters of faith and morals in the future? (I know GOD promises this, but non-christains may object) I cannot make a written list of every possible moral delimma that will occur in the future and then show how I handle it with doctrine. Debates over scripture show us that even scripture spelled out may mislead people.

Oral T 's…I believe this is where the holy spirit actually guides the church, keeping it on track, or pointing it in the right direction.
Lets take the idea of cloning… Not mentioned in the bible. Is it morally exceptable or unexceptable for christain to take part in this process? Nothing in the bible gives us any indication this was going to happen and how the church should react to it. So the Catholic church guided by the holy spirit takes a premise like “all life is precious in the eyes of GOD” …All human life has a soul. Destruction of this life and this soul is wrong. Allowing sceince to play with the lives and souls of people just for tests and medical theories is immoral. The possibility of a mistake, or a reckless act that may occur, no matter what great benifits may outcome from the experiments, It is not worth the loss of a single life. Sometimes this dilemma is not so easy to see with ordinary eyes. As a christain do believe this. What I have said about cloning?
When the world presents a subtle idea that has not been addressed, sometimes this Tradition can only help by declaring was cannont be true, instead of declaring what is formally true. Look at the history of the trinity, the nature of GOD, Christs divinity. All these things were formed by Traditions before we even formalized the Canon of inspired scripture. The Catholic Church was struggling with the nature of GOD, the nature of christ, ect. BUT it definately took a stand against what was not part of the christain faith : gnostisism, arianism, and all the other heresies. WHY? They had the same scriptures. Even with a canoned scripture in hand for almost 1000 yrs, the church took a stand against Luther and his interpretations of justification. The Catholic church proclaimed Luther’s ideas were new to christainity, an addition or subtraction of faith, something never shared or professed by the bishops in the past. There was practically no debate. No discussion. The church held it to what it has always professed or kept, its TRADITION. Of course Luther just got mad and stubborn and look what HE caused. He even confessed what a tragedy he started before he died. “Luther!, you have some explaining to do!!!”. Hope this helps.

It would be nice for someone greater than I to elaborate. In good faith, I have not attempted to dodge or ignore your question.

RMP brushes dirt off sandels and leaves town again. But on the way out he trips and falls, hitting his head. Thump!..ahhh, what was the question?