The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[Philthy]

p90:

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?
You never will be able to do this on your own Matt. None of us can - that is the job of the Church (Magisterium). Christ left us a Church to do this. Is it not obvious to you that by Scripture alone we are left in endless debate over several intellectually sound interpretations which no one, intellectually, can ultimately claim as “the truth”?

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.
Sounds like we had a misunderstanding - sorry if I offended you!

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.
I don’t think you mean to, but are you suggesting that potentially some non-truth on matters of faith and morals came from the apostles?
Unlike 2,000 years ago, I do not have direct access to the Apostles physical voices and conversations.
Correct. Even most of the people around 2000 years ago didn’t have that access. Given that reality how are we to have access to their teaching? Simply having something written down doesn’t seem to accomplish this - see above. I think that’s exactly what the Church(Magisterium) is doing in declaring truths to this day.
I would like to know if what is claimed to be an oral tradition really is an oral tradition.
Translation: “I would like to be intellectually certain beyond a reasonable doubt if what is claimed to be an oral tradition really is an oral tradition.” You are not alone my friend, but sorry, it’s by faith and reason.
As an aside, reflect for a moment on what it means to actually “know” something and you’ll soon realize that you “know” very little. How can we claim present knowledge in light of the fact that the constant progression of time allows for change? Whatever we thought we knew previously could have been changed with time. Is all of our intellectual knowledge confined to history? Maybe we should stick to oral tradition and not reflect too much!

Phil

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

posted by p90

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?

I touched on this earlier and Phil did also. It ultimately comes down to a matter of faith. The Scripture we do have tells us to hold fast to oral traditions, tells us He will be with us always, that the Church is a pillar and foundation of truth. Scripture tells us that there will be sinners in the church and to just let them all grow together until harvest time. Scripture gives us many many times assurances that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide us.

Were those assurances of leading and guiding individual only or apply to the Church, the Body of Christ also?

I think if you look at this point logically, you can see that individuals are led astray. To me, clearly the individual leading can lead to heresy, as you can see with INDIVIDUAL Church Fathers. Now here is the jump in faith (although once the jump is made, it is so simple and clear to see, kind of like the moment you took a step in faith that Christ can save you.) As a whole, Christ has kept His Body, the Church free from doctrinal error and uncorrupt. Otherwise, what do those words of being with you always and pillar and foundation of truth mean?

Your Sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

This is from a thread in apologetics. It pretty much says the same thing that I did. These things are not explicit in Scripture, but they are in Scripture. So I do not think there is the “proof” you need if it cannot be found in one of these. I am truly Sorry.

That said, I would argue there are at least 5 specific Catholic doctrines received by “oral apostolic tradition” that don’t have clear and explicit reference in Scripture:

(1) infant or paedobaptism

(2) Mary as the “New Eve” (which developed into other Marian beliefs)

(3) prayers for the dead (e.g. although mentioned in 2 Macc 12)

(4) the primacy and authority of Rome (and hence, its Bishop) as the center of Christian orthodoxy

(5) apostolic succession, the Bishops inherit the authority of the apostles (but not their Spirit inspiration), with the Bishop of Rome especially called “the Apostolic See” as Peter’s seat of authority

Those are some specifics since evangelical apologists like to ask for them. These beliefs show up universally in the early-mid 2nd century Church (ubique, semper, ab omnibus = that which is believed everywhere, always, and by all).

These aren’t necessarily “essential” to “mere Christianity” but they are essential to Catholic theology and explain why we believe our later developed beliefs are apostolic.

Phil P

As you can see all of these things are things we did bring up, that have implicit Scripture references. All of these things, you can find writings in the early church about that reflects Catholic beliefs, but nothing that I have found that says, “Paul said” just the apostles said. So I guess my search is done. I don’t think I can find any “proof” for you. But I will put you in my prayers. I truly believe all the “proof” you need is before you. Now you just need the Holy Spirit to guide you to that truth. Kind of ironic, but there it is.

May God Bless you, Matt.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Philthy]

Hey Matt-

Quote from PHILTHY (to Matt):

As an aside, reflect for a moment on what it means to actually “know” something and you’ll soon realize that you “know” very little. How can we claim present knowledge in light of the fact that the constant progression of time allows for change? Whatever we thought we knew previously could have been changed with time. Is all of our intellectual knowledge confined to history? Maybe we should stick to oral tradition and not reflect too much!

That last sentence is absurd! That’s not what I meant to say at all. I meant to say, “Maybe we should stick to** the topic of** oral tradition and not reflect too much.” I meant to sort of goof on myself for drifting off - that’s all…

Phil

 

[RMP]

posted by p90

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

Your facts or research is totally wrong here. You are confusing the WHAT with the HOW debate on the real presence. The Fathers unanimously agreed on the “real presence” to being actual flesh and blood all throughtout history. Only heresy challenged this otherwise, and those heresies have been delt with in history (research them yourself and why they were not christian). The Fathers were trying to DEFINE the HOW of the the REAL PRESENCE. HOW the bread and wine BECOMES the FLESH AND BLOOD. What is necccessary for it to occur, ect.

 

[p90]

MariaG:

So I guess my search is done.

Thanks for all of the hard work you did regarding my request. It’s appreciated.

~Matt

 

[p90]

RMP:

Your facts or research is totally wrong here.

Your disagreement is with widely accepted scholarship. While all of the fathers affirmed a “real presence,” it has been documented that they interpreted what that “real presence” meant in different ways.

Please, try a little harder to make a valid point or objection, not just fling a loftly, unsupported anti-catholic accusation.:whacky

We don’t have to use the real presence as an example of what I was trying to demonstrate. Eschatology would work as well, along with a variety of other issues that early church fathers differed on. As for trying “a little harder,” it’s difficult to respond any more significantly to empty rhetoric.

~Matt

 

[p90]

Hey Matt-

Quote from PHILTHY (to Matt):

As an aside, reflect for a moment on what it means to actually “know” something and you’ll soon realize that you “know” very little. How can we claim present knowledge in light of the fact that the constant progression of time allows for change? Whatever we thought we knew previously could have been changed with time. Is all of our intellectual knowledge confined to history? Maybe we should stick to oral tradition and not reflect too much!

That last sentence is absurd! That’s not what I meant to say at all. I meant to say, “Maybe we should stick to** the topic of** oral tradition and not reflect too much.” I meant to sort of goof on myself for drifting off - that’s all…

Phil

Concerning knowledge, I have many more reasons to be confident in the current Evangelical canon than I do regarding oral tradition. Yes, faith is a large component of Christianity, but I don’t think my desire for confidence in what exactly constitutes oral tradition is a notion that entails unreasonable amounts of confidence.

However, as it stands, it looks like, from the answers I have received, the that key to accepting and understanding what the Catholic Church has deemed as oral tradition is accepting the authority claims of the Catholic Church in being able to faithfully hand down that tradition (feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken here). We’ve somewhat strayed from Sola Scriptura, but I appreciate the time you’ve spent discussing some of these issues with me.

btw. You did not offend me with the possible misunderstanding; don’t worry about it.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

However, as it stands, it looks like, from the answers I have received, the that key to accepting and understanding what the Catholic Church has deemed as oral tradition is accepting the authority claims of the Catholic Church in being able to faithfully hand down that tradition

I would agree with that. Ultimately it does come down to the authority of the Catholic Church in my opinion also.

So how about you start a thread on John 21:15- 19 where Christ gives Peter 3 different directives. Feed my lambs, TEND my sheep and feed my sheep. I think you can figure out what Catholics think of these verses but what do you interpret them as?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

p.s.
Although I have stopped actively searching, I will notify you if I find anything. God Bless.

 

[mayra_hart]

The doctrine of the Trinity: Once a Christian has the doctrine of the Trinity, Scripture can be found to support it, but no verse or combination of verses in Scripture tells us that there is one God in Three Persons, each Person wholly and entirely God, all co-equal, co-eternal, and possessing the divine nature totally unto Himself, the Godhead having but one divine intellect and one divine will.

The Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity: Certainly Scripture can be found which tells us the Holy Spirit is God (e.g., Acts 5:3-4), but nowhere does it say that God consists of more than one Person. Numerous early heresies concerning the Holy Spirit arose both because the canon of Scripture was not yet fully defined and because those elements of Scripture that were recognized were simply not all that clear on how the Holy Spirit fit into the Godhead. Jesus Christ as true God and true Man: Scripture is essentially silent on the true nature, or rather natures, of Christ. Scripture says Jesus Christ is God; Scripture says Jesus Christ is human; Scripture says Jesus Christ is like us in all things but sin. But nowhere does Scripture say how or when all of this fits together. Was He this way from the moment of conception, or did His divinity descend upon Him at the baptism by John?

 

[RMP]

Please, try a little harder to make a valid point or objection, not just fling a loftly, unsupported anti-catholic accusation.:whacky

I apolagize for that comment, I thought I had edited it out of my response…

 

[RMP]

Your disagreement is with widely accepted scholarship. While all of the fathers affirmed a “real presence,” it has been documented that they interpreted what that “real presence” meant in different ways.

Your objection totally affirms my statement. All Fathers affirmed a “real presence”…thank you.

What the Fathers were debating was how to describe the real presense and when did the bread and wine become changed.

 

[RMP]

You asked how do we know which father to listen too. That is not what is important, it is almost irrelevant. What is important is the teaching that is actually survived today. Look at the present catholic teaching on the real presense… Tell me how it is wrong.

 

[p90]

RMP:

Your objection totally affirms my statement. All Fathers affirmed a “real presence”…thank you.

What the Fathers were debating was how to describe the real presense and when did the bread and wine become changed.

Then how are my “facts and research” “totally wrong”?

You asked how do we know which father to listen too. That is not what is important, it is almost irrelevant. What is important is the teaching that is actually survived today. Look at the present catholic teaching on the real presense… Tell me how it is wrong.

If the current Catholic interpretation of the “real presence” is claimed to be from an oral tradition descended from the Apostles, you can’t just look to the fathers to verify that claim, since a variety of fathers claimed different interpretations of the “real presence.” What father(s) faithfully passed it on and how do we know that he did?

These types of questions may not be relevant to you, but they are certainly relevant to Protestants who try to take seriously the Catholic admonishment for Protestants to follow oral tradition. But since I’ve already agreed to the solution to the questions I’ve raised, it’s not necessary for me to belabor the point.

~Matt

 

[p90]

MariaG:

So how about you start a thread on John 21:15- 19 where Christ gives Peter 3 different directives. Feed my lambs, TEND my sheep and feed my sheep. I think you can figure out what Catholics think of these verses but what do you interpret them as?

How about you start a thread explaining your take on the three distinctives and what they entail for Catholic authority, and I’ll join in later with my understanding?

~Matt

 

[RMP]

p90

If the current Catholic interpretation of the “real presence” is claimed to be from an oral tradition descended from the Apostles, you can’t just look to the fathers to verify that claim, since a variety of fathers claimed different interpretations of the “real presence.” What father(s) faithfully passed it on and how do we know that he did?

WHAT?! Oral tradition comes down from the fathers, but you cant just look at to the Fathers to verify its claim! We cant look at history to verify a claim. This is absolute nonsense. This is exctly what we have to do if we dont trust the church at first.

Your arguement sounds like this to me:
Its like your parents naming you MATT but they died before they could ever tell you personally, and, everyday the rest of your family is calling you MATT. But you are not sure to believe your family that your name is MATT, because you never heard it out of your parents mouth. So the only reason you would believe your name is MATT is a birth certificate. You are totaly disregarding history, and limiting your understanding to just the written word.
I guess you will never now WHY they named you MATT!. Do you see my point? Because the people around you just might get it wrong. Has it ever occurred to you that they could also get it right?

Plz give me an example of a church FATHER with a different interpretation of the REAL presence. Christ has a real presense, or he doesnt in the eucharist. There are only 2 sides of the interpretation arguement. Christ said it himself at the last supper. The Fathers just keep reminding us, from ORAL and the FATHERS’s written Tradition (scripture). ORAL and written do not contradict each other AT ALL.

I dont understand. you believe in , scripture alone, possibly faith alone, but faith in church history is exactly the one ingredient you seem to have missing. You have stripped church history of faith, only because you dont know who to believe, and replaced it with the idea of an original church of w/o a doubt, as long as it in in scripture. You trust the church at first, but then you discard it after the church wrote down some rules. Why do you even trust scripture then? You never met the men who wrote scripture. whats the difference.
You could be relying on hearsay and stories yourself. Why put faith in any church or any written documents. Why believe in Christ then, you never meet him. At least I get to meet him ever sunday at MASS. I get to masticate his flesh with my teeth, I get to drink his blood. Why dont you trust me? Im am doing exactly what CHRIST told me to do.

written scripture and ORAL Tradition make the Catholic FAITH.
I guess you really seem to have 1/2 faith alone, written faith, but not oral faith.

 

[p90]

RMP:

WHAT?! Oral tradition comes down from the fathers, but you cant just look at to the Fathers to verify its claim! We cant look at history to verify a claim. This is absolute nonsense. This is exctly what we have to do if we dont trust the church at first.

You’re not understanding what I’ve written. I was responding to the simple assertion that appealing to a father that agrees with the Catholic Church is enough to validate an oral tradition. It may not contradict what the apostles taught, but how do we know that what father X believes actually came from the Apostles? It’s similar to asking how we verify that the current canon is correct. It’s not simply enough to claim that the apostles wrote it; there’s a lot more to the issue.

Has it ever occurred to you that they could also get it right?

Yes. Why would I be involved in this thread if I didn’t think so? This is not unreasonable skepticism. When I look at the current canon there are lot of very good reasons to believe that it’s the inspired God of word and the correct extent of that word. What reasons do we have to believe that what is claimed to be oral tradition really is from the Apostles? If you have some, please provide them.

Plz give me an example of a church FATHER with a different interpretation of the REAL presence.

Widely acknowledge patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly does a survey of the different interpretations of the eucharistic presence in Early Christian Doctrines. I refer you to pages 211ff and 440-458 of the revised edition. If you need more information to obtain the book, please let me know.

I would quote appropriate sections, but, again, I don’t think it’s necessary to belabor the point.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

Sure, Matt. I will start it today. I might not be able to contribute much after the initial posting, but I know others will pipe in. The title will be “Tend my sheep”.

Your sister in Christ,

Maria

 

[RMP]

Widely acknowledge patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly does a survey of the different interpretations of the eucharistic presence in Early Christian Doctrines. I refer you to pages 211ff and 440-458 of the revised edition. If you need more information to obtain the book, please let me know

Is this book online, or at the book store? Tell me where i can find it. I would be happy to read it…

I think you have still missed my point of the discussion. The Holy Spirit protects the church from teaching ERROR, not from different dissenting VOICES. The Official teaching of the CATHOLIC church is the eucharist is a REAL presense of Christ. OUR LORD himself. The WHAT of the eucharist is not debatable. Transubstantiation is our best guess at this time.
The HOW is it or WHEN it becomes the real presense has differing points of view of the form. Invoking the words, intention of priest, that kind of thing.

ORAL tradition is still in open debate, what is it? How does it occur? How do we know someone is using Oral tradition and is protected? These questions are still open and may not clearly have an answer. BUT, that does not change the fact it does exist, today. For example, the trinity existed long before we attempted to define it. It was in effect long before we realized it. The fathers of the church recognize the importance of ORAL tradition and its hand and hand relationship with scripture.

I will ask you one more question, do you think oral tradition exists outside of scripture? I am not asking what it is or what does it mean, or what are examples of it specifically, only DOES ORAL Tradition exist outside of scripture? yes or no.

Your conclusion may be that Oral tradition is not required any more since we have scripture. The one holy catholic and apostolic church declares differently. So this leads us back to authority, not to the existance of present day ORAL TRADITION. Until the Catholic Church declares all ORAL TRADITION is contained in scripture, ORAL Tradition must be accepted byt the power of the church to bind and loose.

Dont you see the big picture. The church is very cautious about stripping away a truth that existed. You seem more than eager to strip it away. The Church is keeping or protecting something it has always professed, Sola Scripture seems all too eager to strip away or change something that was certainly present.

 

[MariaG]

posted by RMP

Dont you see the big picture. The church is very cautious about stripping away a truth that existed. You seem more than eager to strip it away. The Church is keeping or protecting something it has always professed, Sola Scripture seems all too eager to strip away or change something that was certainly present.

But from Matt’s side of the fence it is not stripping away but adding. Luther stripped it away 500 years ago. Through no fault of their own, Protestants are now in the position of having to “add” to the truth. The fact that it is simply restoring the truth is beside the point. I have great respect for those who do not wish to “add” to the truth which they already have. It is not the fullness of the truth, but that can only been seen clearly once you are on the other side. When on the other side of the issue, it appears to be similar to Mormons who have “further revelations of Christ”. The distinction to Catholics is quite clear. But I know as a Protestant, the book of Mormon and the Traditions of the Catholic Church seemed the same to me. Both appeared to “add” to the truth found in Scripture alone.

God Bless,
Maria