Weak Sola Scriptura argument

[Spirithound]

Personally, I’ve always wondered if the oral tradition they talk about following couldn’t have been in the New Testament itself. After all, it would have been transmitted orally, at least in the beginning.

I would lean away from this idea. It seems true that the Gospels were initially transmitted orally, but one characteristic of the Epistles is that they are letters, written down. I have heard that they would have been copied out and then passed on to another church.

Also, it is great to have Scripture, but it is necessary to have someone who can teach from it.

 

[sinner06]

First, there’s no difference between the NT (or the OT) and Catholic Tradition. All of Scripture is an inseperable part of Tradition (it’s the written part of Tradition), and as such, they will never contradict each other.

Secondly, the oral tradition the apostles exhort believers to hold to, is made distinct from the written ones. 2 Thes 2:15 …either by word of mouth, or by letter

So, while the entire canon of Scripture (not just the NT) is part of Tradition, so were other teachings and practices that were orally handed down through the generations. This is why you don’t find everything The Church teaches explicitly in Scripture; however, all of the true proclamations of faith and morals ARE found within Scripture. They are extracted from an authentic interpretation of Scripture, and made manifest in the entire body of Tradition within The Church.

God Bless

Wouldn’t the Gospels have been transmitted by word of mouth at this point? So word of mouth could refer to the Gospel(s), and letters could refer to the Epistles, or something similar to that? Again, I’m not even sure if I believe this, I was just wondering if there were any holes in this theory that I hadn’t noticed. Thanks!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

First, there’s no difference between the NT (or the OT) and Catholic Tradition. All of Scripture is an inseperable part of Tradition (it’s the written part of Tradition), and as such, they will never contradict each other.

Secondly, the oral tradition the apostles exhort believers to hold to, is made distinct from the written ones. 2 Thes 2:15 …either by word of mouth, or by letter

So, while the entire canon of Scripture (not just the NT) is part of Tradition, so were other teachings and practices that were orally handed down through the generations. This is why you don’t find everything The Church teaches explicitly in Scripture; however, all of the true proclamations of faith and morals ARE found within Scripture. They are extracted from an authentic interpretation of Scripture, and made manifest in the entire body of Tradition within The Church.

God Bless

 

[sinner06]

I understand that this is Catholic teaching about tradition, but I guess I should rephrase myself, is there anything from the Bible that would disprove this. Catholic tradition’s stance on Catholic tradition is not going to help me much. Thanks!

 

[sinner06]

I would lean away from this idea. It seems true that the Gospels were initially transmitted orally, but one characteristic of the Epistles is that they are letters, written down. I have heard that they would have been copied out and then passed on to another church.

Also, it is great to have Scripture, but it is necessary to have someone who can teach from it.

Something else I was wondering. Did the Jews have infallible leaders? I don’t think they did, but I could be wrong. If Moses, and Joshua, and Saul and David and Solomon all weren’t infallible, yet the Jews got along just fine, why do Catholics say we need an infallible teacher? We need a teacher, certainly, but infallible teachers weren’t necessary in the Old Covenant, why would they be necessary in this one? If I’m wrong, please correct me, thanks!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I understand that this is Catholic teaching about tradition, but I guess I should rephrase myself, is there anything from the Bible that would disprove this. Catholic tradition’s stance on Catholic tradition is not going to help me much. Thanks!

The man made tradition of Sola Scriptura is really ignorant when one considers all the historical evidence and the way people lived before the printing press.

There is a lot to discuss and Sola Scripurists usually always fail to discuss anything beyond scripture. So it turns into a foolish conversation…

Bottom line is that the scripture we have are rewritten and the language used has been partially lost. If you reject any Tradition that is not scripture alone then you do so at the loss of Truth. That is why Sola Scriptura has hundreds of different Traditions and churches. Since the birth of Sola Scriptura during the Protestant Reformation we have witnessed the creation of hundreds of new churches with hundreds of new teachings and they all teach lies to some degree.

It is very foolish to stray from the teachings that have been around for 2,000 years and for any Protestant that is exactly what they do.

So you and I and any of us can amuse ourselves with imagining how scripture should be read and what tradition is and in the end we will be without the guidance God gave us. There are many reasons that the Catholic Church is the one and only True Faith. It would do us all good to learn why this is.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Something else I was wondering. Did the Jews have infallible leaders? I don’t think they did, but I could be wrong. If Moses, and Joshua, and Saul and David and Solomon all weren’t infallible, yet the Jews got along just fine, why do Catholics say we need an infallible teacher? We need a teacher, certainly, but infallible teachers weren’t necessary in the Old Covenant, why would they be necessary in this one? If I’m wrong, please correct me, thanks!

The Chair of Moses… some more Tradition.

Start there…

 

[sinner06]

The Chair of Moses… some more Tradition.

Start there…

Was it infallible? Please give me details, I don’t know much about the Chair of Moses.

 

[sinner06]

The man made tradition of Sola Scriptura is really ignorant when one considers all the historical evidence and the way people lived before the printing press.

There is a lot to discuss and Sola Scripurists usually always fail to discuss anything beyond scripture. So it turns into a foolish conversation…

Bottom line is that the scripture we have are rewritten and the language used has been partially lost. If you reject any Tradition that is not scripture alone then you do so at the loss of Truth. That is why Sola Scriptura has hundreds of different Traditions and churches. Since the birth of Sola Scriptura during the Protestant Reformation we have witnessed the creation of hundreds of new churches with hundreds of new teachings and they all teach lies to some degree.

It is very foolish to stray from the teachings that have been around for 2,000 years and for any Protestant that is exactly what they do.

So you and I and any of us can amuse ourselves with imagining how scripture should be read and what tradition is and in the end we will be without the guidance God gave us. There are many reasons that the Catholic Church is the one and only True Faith. It would do us all good to learn why this is.

So the Catholic Church is infallible because it claims it is? We need its help interpreting scripture because it says we do?

As for not straying away from a teaching simply because it’s old, slavery was pretty old too when it was first challenged too. The amount of time a concept has been around has nothing to do with its correctness.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Was it infallible? Please give me details, I don’t know much about the Chair of Moses.

The High Priest had the final word.

Read about Moses and his brother and you will glean some understanding.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So the Catholic Church is infallible because it claims it is? We need its help interpreting scripture because it says we do?

As for not straying away from a teaching simply because it’s old, slavery was pretty old too when it was first challenged too. The amount of time a concept has been around has nothing to do with its correctness.

The Catholic Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Catholic Church is guided and protected by the Paraclete. The Catholic Church has the Chair of Peter. It is the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and so the only true Faith.

What more can I say?

 

[sinner06]

The High Priest had the final word.

Read about Moses and his brother and you will glean some understanding.

Where is that in the Bible? Thanks!

 

[sinner06]

The Catholic Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Catholic Church is guided and protected by the Paraclete. The Catholic Church has the Chair of Peter. It is the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and so the only true Faith.

What more can I say?

Could you say why you believe this?

 

[SteveGC]

Wouldn’t the Gospels have been transmitted by word of mouth at this point? So word of mouth could refer to the Gospel(s), and letters could refer to the Epistles, or something similar to that? Again, I’m not even sure if I believe this, I was just wondering if there were any holes in this theory that I hadn’t noticed. Thanks!

I see where you’re coming from here now.

Yes, much of what the apostles handed down orally through tradition was the Gospel message. Do we know for a fact that there was nothing else they taught orally? Not really. There are clues, though. Scripture itself attests to the fact that many of the actions, and presumably, teachings, of Christ were not written down anywhere (Jn 21:25). If it was important enough for John to write that fact down, it was probably important to somehow retain these extra-biblical teachings of Christ, and hand them on orally through the apostolic family. Other clues are the early Church Fathers, especially those directly linked with the some of the 12 while they were still living…like Polycarp and Clement. The verified writings of these, and many other, fathers of the Church, expound upon Scriptural writings and demonstrate or reflect a consistent doctrinal standard that is often not explicitly found within those same scriptural writings.

To answer your other concern…no, The Church is not the real Church of Christ because it says so, or because it’s old. It happens to be the only Church in the world which DOES claim to be the One True Apostolic Church, and that alone is a good reason to give due credence to it’s authenticity. But more than that, She happens to be the only Church whose leadership CAN be traced directly back, successively through ordination, to St Peter and the 11. No other church on earth can do that (save for the EOC which is in communion with The Church). Beyond that, the infallibility is there because Christ deemed it to be. The teaching of faith and morals needed to be protected from error, because humans can quickly mess things up, whether it be transmitting teachings orally, or by interpreting written words. Infallibility is a gift from the Holy Spirit that protects the Holy See when he is proclaiming a truth regarding faith and morals ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter). If you search this site for ‘infallibility’, you will see that it is an often misunderstood charism of The Church.

I would say that the prophets were infallible in much the same way, yes. They were guided by God to teach faith and morals to the people of the age of Messianic prophesy, much like The Church does now for the age of the risen Messiah.

God Bless

 

[sinner06]

I see where you’re coming from here now.

Yes, much of what the apostles handed down orally through tradition was the Gospel message. Do we know for a fact that there was nothing else they taught orally? Not really. There are clues, though. Scripture itself attests to the fact that many of the actions, and presumably, teachings, of Christ were not written down anywhere (Jn 21:25). If it was important enough for John to write that fact down, it was probably important to somehow retain these extra-biblical teachings of Christ, and hand them on orally through the apostolic family. Other clues are the early Church Fathers, especially those directly linked with the some of the 12 while they were still living…like Polycarp and Clement. The verified writings of these, and many other, fathers of the Church, expound upon Scriptural writings and demonstrate or reflect a consistent doctrinal standard that is often not explicitly found within those same scriptural writings.

To answer your other concern…no, The Church is not the real Church of Christ because it says so, or because it’s old. It happens to be the only Church in the world which DOES claim to be the One True Apostolic Church, and that alone is a good reason to give due credence to it’s authenticity. But more than that, She happens to be the only Church whose leadership CAN be traced directly back, successively through ordination, to St Peter and the 11. No other church on earth can do that (save for the EOC which is in communion with The Church). Beyond that, the infallibility is there because Christ deemed it to be. The teaching of faith and morals needed to be protected from error, because humans can quickly mess things up, whether it be transmitting teachings orally, or by interpreting written words. Infallibility is a gift from the Holy Spirit that protects the Holy See when he is proclaiming a truth regarding faith and morals ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter). If you search this site for ‘infallibility’, you will see that it is an often misunderstood charism of The Church.

I would say that the prophets were infallible in much the same way, yes. They were guided by God to teach faith and morals to the people of the age of Messianic prophesy, much like The Church does now for the age of the risen Messiah.

God Bless

The verse you quoted only says that Jesus did many things, it says nothing about extra teachings. Couldn’t this just be referring to healings, miracles, etc. After all, if the Scriptures recorded every healing that occurred during His 3 year long ministry, It would be a long book. Scripture details some healings and miracles, to show how powerful He was, and because teachings sometimes accompanied the miracles, but writing down everything He did was not necessary. 1000 extra pages containing miracles would no have added any more meaning to the Gospel, so it wasn’t added. That’s my theory anyways.

Secondly, you said, “the infallibility is there because Christ deemed it to be”. I was just wondering, where does this come from? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just wondering where the Church gets this. Thanks!

 

[sinner06]

Anyone?

 

[SteveGC]

The verse you quoted only says that Jesus did many things, it says nothing about extra teachings. Couldn’t this just be referring to healings, miracles, etc. After all, if the Scriptures recorded every healing that occurred during His 3 year long ministry, It would be a long book. Scripture details some healings and miracles, to show how powerful He was, and because teachings sometimes accompanied the miracles, but writing down everything He did was not necessary. 1000 extra pages containing miracles would no have added any more meaning to the Gospel, so it wasn’t added. That’s my theory anyways.

Secondly, you said, “the infallibility is there because Christ deemed it to be”. I was just wondering, where does this come from? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just wondering where the Church gets this. Thanks!

The Church doesn’t “get” it from anywhere. It just is. Is it documented in Scripture? Yes, quite clearly, actually…if you look at it through the eyes of obvious tradition. When I say obvious, I mean, a common sense approach to how we’ve all really learned about Christ to begin with. It wasn’t just ourselves and the Bible. And it certainly wasn’t that way for the billions before Bibles were commonplace. It was by human teaching. And when one recognizes that human teaching is where the true story of Christ resides, the only thing that then stands to reason is that, within the multitude of so-called ‘teachers’ out there, who all teach the story in different ways, there must exist one bonafide, authentic source of humans who cannot lead us astray…because truth is objective. What is true for one, is true for all - regardless of what we choose to believe. So, someone (or some group) has it right…has always had it right, and will always have it right. This is the only reasonable reality. The Bible alone won’t cut it, as essential as Sacred Scripture indeed is. It must accompany authentic human teaching. This is why The Catholic Church is worthy of everyone’s trust, because She not only claims it, She backs it up with historical, and yes, biblical, proof.

God Bless

 

[sinner06]

The Church doesn’t “get” it from anywhere. It just is. Is it documented in Scripture? Yes, quite clearly, actually…if you look at it through the eyes of obvious tradition. When I say obvious, I mean, a common sense approach to how we’ve all really learned about Christ to begin with. It wasn’t just ourselves and the Bible. And it certainly wasn’t that way for the billions before Bibles were commonplace. It was by human teaching. And when one recognizes that human teaching is where the true story of Christ resides, the only thing that then stands to reason is that, within the multitude of so-called ‘teachers’ out there, who all teach the story in different ways, there must exist one bonafide, authentic source of humans who cannot lead us astray…because truth is objective. What is true for one, is true for all - regardless of what we choose to believe. So, someone (or some group) has it right…has always had it right, and will always have it right. This is the only reasonable reality. The Bible alone won’t cut it, as essential as Sacred Scripture indeed is. It must accompany authentic human teaching. This is why The Catholic Church is worthy of everyone’s trust, because She not only claims it, She backs it up with historical, and yes, biblical, proof.

God Bless

What biblical proof?

 

[Spirithound]

Anyone?

Matthew 16:18-19
18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

[sinner06]

Matthew 16:18-19
18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

All right, Peter was obviously a leader in the early Church, possibly the leader. Let’s say he and the other Apostles were infallible, though I don’t see anywhere in there that talks about infallibility, or ex cathedra, or that, but let’s say they were. What’s to say all of their infallible teachings aren’t contained in scripture?