Weak Sola Scriptura argument

[JacktheCatholic]

He simply told them to do what the Pharisees said. You must obey your parents, right? That doesn’t mean they’re infallible, it simply means that they’re your parents and you owe them loyalty and obedience, regardless of the correctness of what they’re saying. The scribes and the Pharisees were prominent Jewish leaders, and as Jews, the Apostles would have been required to show them obedience and respect, right? But they were not to follow the Pharisees hypocritical ways. I don’t see how infallibility is shown there.

Secondly, are you saying the scribes and the Pharisees were infallible? I’ve never heard that before.

Before moving forward let us look at Matthew 23 again:

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 **All things **therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not.

 

[sinner06]

Before moving forward let us look at Matthew 23 again:

So they were infallible?

 

[sinner06]

What I’m trying to say is, my whole point was that I didn’t believe the Jews had Infallible tradition. Are you saying that the individual(s) occupying the Chair of Moses were infallible? Because if you are, than you’re saying the scribes and the Pharisees were infallible. If you’re not, then we’re right back were we started with there not being any example of infallibility among the Jews. I certainly think that they had traditions, they of course had all kinds of tradition outside of their scriptures, this Chair of Moses thing being one of them, but the whole point was did they have infallible tradition the way the Catholic Church claims to have today?

 

[SteveGC]

So they were infallible?

It’s a fair question.

Looking at the Pharisees and the “Chair of Moses”, and comparing it to the Apostles and the “Chair of Peter”, it might be a comparison of infallibility, but it definitely is a comparison of respect for human authority. Jesus sets the tone for believers as He fully recognizes and supports the teaching authority of the sinful Pharisees, and this relates directly to the eventual Apostolic teaching authority the 12 would gain from Christ Himself. They themselves would not be free from sinful behavior, but their seat of authority must be respected. The charism of infallibility (protection from teaching error) was certainly granted to the Apostles (and their successors), and I would speculate (admittedly without knowing for sure) that this charism was also present with the Pharisees (who themselves were successors of the prophets, elders and Sanhedrin). So again, it was a certainly a comparison to the need for respected human authority, and yes, it could also have been a comparison for the sake of demonstrating infallibility.

Here’s an extract from a Catholic.com article: Oral Tradition in the NT:

*Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3).

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting “on Moses’ seat.” [David Hill informs us that Moses’ seat was “not simply a metaphor. There was an actual stone seat in front of the synagogue where the authoritative teacher (usually a scribe) sat.” The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 310.] One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abote indicates, the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected. L. Sabourin, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1982), vol. 2, 793.]

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.
*

God Bless

 

[sinner06]

Looking at the Pharisees and the “Chair of Moses”, and comparing it to the Apostles and the “Chair of Peter”, it is not a comparison of infallibility per se, so much as it is a comparison of respect for human authority. Jesus sets the tone for believers as He fully recognizes and supports the teaching authority of the sinful Pharisees, and this relates directly to the eventual Apostolic teaching authority the 12 would gain from Christ Himself. They themselves would not be free from sinful behavior, but their seat of authority must be respected. The charism of infallibility (protection from teaching error) is what would set the Apostles (and their successors) apart from the Pharisees (who themselves were successors of the Sanhedrin). So again, it was not a comparison for the sake of infallibility, so much as it was a comparison to human authority.

Here’s an extract from a Catholic.com article: Oral Tradition in the NT:

*Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3).

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting “on Moses’ seat.” [David Hill informs us that Moses’ seat was “not simply a metaphor. There was an actual stone seat in front of the synagogue where the authoritative teacher (usually a scribe) sat.” The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 310.] One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.

As the first verse of the Mishna tractate Abote indicates, the Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21). The scribes and Pharisees participated in this authoritative line and as such their teaching deserved to be respected. L. Sabourin, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1982), vol. 2, 793.]

Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.
*

God Bless

So they had authority, but not infallibility? What is meant by authority then?

Also, I read the verse mentioned, Acts 15:21, which just says, " 21"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." This just seems to be talking about how every sabbath people would read from scriptures, some of which were supposedly written by Moses, I believe, or were at least about Moses and the things he taught. This doesn’t seem to say anything about teaching authority.

But the key things is this, what kind of authority did the scribes and Pharisees have, if not infallibility?

 

[SteveGC]

So they had authority, but not infallibility? What is meant by authority then?

Also, I read the verse mentioned, Acts 15:21, which just says, " 21"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." This just seems to be talking about how every sabbath people would read from scriptures, some of which were supposedly written by Moses, I believe, or were at least about Moses and the things he taught. This doesn’t seem to say anything about teaching authority.

But the key things is this, what kind of authority did the scribes and Pharisees have, if not infallibility?

In the time you responded to this, I edited my post for content…specifically, I changed my wording to suggest that it is quite possible to assume that the pharisee’s seat of authority was one of infallible teaching, despite their sinful ways. Bottom line, though. I personally don’t rest on the relationship of the Pharisee’s and the Apostles to show evidence for the gift of infallibility. I stick with Mt 16 for that mostly.

I will get back to you soon to clarify the Catholic position. Thanks for your patience.

 

[bksumm]

I think there is confusion between being infallible and impeccable. The Pharisees were obvious hypocrites and sinners…but as Jesus tells us that their teaching was orthodox.

Likewise, the Pope isn’t perfect, he makes personal mistakes. He goes to confession. However, when teaching from the Chair of Peter, the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from error. My understanding is that this is limited only to the teaching of faith and morals.

Another example of the Holy Spirit protecting humans from error was in the writing of sacred scripture. I think we would all agree that God protected the sacred writings from error. Fallible men wrote the infallible Word of God.

I hope this contributes something

 

[sinner06]

I think there is confusion between being infallible and impeccable. The Pharisees were obvious hypocrites and sinners…but as Jesus tells us that their teaching was orthodox.

Likewise, the Pope isn’t perfect, he makes personal mistakes. He goes to confession. However, when teaching from the Chair of Peter, the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from error. My understanding is that this is limited only to the teaching of faith and morals.

Another example of the Holy Spirit protecting humans from error was in the writing of sacred scripture. I think we would all agree that God protected the sacred writings from error. Fallible men wrote the infallible Word of God.

I hope this contributes something

Don’t worry, I know the difference between infallibility and impeccability. But the point of this discussion was whether or not the Jews had infallible tradition, the way the Catholic Church does. Some of the above say that they did, and that the scribes and the Pharisees were infallible, which I’ve never heard before.

All right, please as many Catholics as possible answer this, do you believe that the scribes and the Pharisees were infallible? And is this a Church teaching? If you do, and it is, then I’ll think about it but I’ve never heard that before, and it doesn’t make much sense to me, though this is probably a result of my fallen state. Thanks in advance to everyone who answers, God Bless

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Don’t worry, I know the difference between infallibility and impeccability. But the point of this discussion was whether or not the Jews had infallible tradition, the way the Catholic Church does. Some of the above say that they did, and that the scribes and the Pharisees were infallible, which I’ve never heard before.

All right, please as many Catholics as possible answer this, do you believe that the scribes and the Pharisees were infallible? And is this a Church teaching? If you do, and it is, then I’ll think about it but I’ve never heard that before, and it doesn’t make much sense to me, though this is probably a result of my fallen state. Thanks in advance to everyone who answers, God Bless

There is nothing in the Catholic doctrines that says we are to believe that the Priests of the OT were infallible, and there is nothing to say they were not. But please understand that when a Catholic is speaking of Infallibility that we are speaking of the man in the Chair who has a Spiritual guidance so as to teach on matters of Faith and Morals so that when this man makes a doctrine or dogma that it is free from error because God guides this man. Similiarity is found in scriptural writings where the Spirit has guided an Apostle’s hand to write infallibly for our teaching.

But the man is still fallible and what is infallible is God’s guidance.

 

[bksumm]

Sinner06,

I believe all things are possible with God. I believe God protected His divine teachings of the OT from error. Those teachings were delievered and administered by fallible men who were sinners. However, the Lord used fallible men to deliver His divine revelation. It was the teaching that was infallible not the men. Today, in a similar way, God protects the teaching of His Church from error.

Do I believe that the Pharisees themselves were infallible? Of course not!

Was their teaching protected from error? Yes.

 

[sinner06]

Sinner06,

I believe all things are possible with God. I believe God protected His divine teachings of the OT from error. Those teachings were delievered and administered by fallible men who were sinners. However, the Lord used fallible men to deliver His divine revelation. It was the teaching that was infallible not the men. Today, in a similar way, God protects the teaching of His Church from error.

Do I believe that the Pharisees themselves were infallible? Of course not!

Was their teaching protected from error? Yes.

First off, I’m e-mailing several Jewish rabbis to discuss the position the scribes and Pharisees had. However, something I noticed, that makes it seem unlikely that the Pharisees were protected from error, Matthew 15:9, “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9’BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINE HUMAN PRECEPTS.”
Jesus is condemning their teachings, their doctrines. So they could not have been protected from error, could they?

And again, Matthew 16:11-12, " ‘How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ Then they understood that He was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

It seems highly unlikely that they were protected from error.

There is nothing in the Catholic doctrines that says we are to believe that the Priests of the OT were infallible, and there is nothing to say they were not. But please understand that when a Catholic is speaking of Infallibility that we are speaking of the man in the Chair who has a Spiritual guidance so as to teach on matters of Faith and Morals so that when this man makes a doctrine or dogma that it is free from error because God guides this man. Similiarity is found in scriptural writings where the Spirit has guided an Apostle’s hand to write infallibly for our teaching.

But the man is still fallible and what is infallible is God’s guidance.

But if the Old Testament scribes and Pharisees weren’t infallible, if they did not have God’s infallible guidance, then I have yet to see an example of infallibility among Jews, which was my whole point, that I didn’t believe the Jews had infallible tradition, the kind the Catholic Church claims we need. They had traditions outside of scripture, of course, but not infallible tradition. And if they did not have infallibility, yet they got along just fine, why are Catholics appalled when someone suggests that we don’t need infallible tradition either?

 

[sinner06]

It just doesn’t make sense…

 

[sinner06]

Can anyone explain to me why we so desperately need infallible tradition?

 

[Spirithound]

Can anyone explain to me why we so desperately need infallible tradition?

I can’t tell you whether we need it, only that the Church possesses it.

 

[SteveGC]

Can anyone explain to me why we so desperately need infallible tradition?

See if this helps.

This is a post of mine on another thread regarding Apostolic Tradition, and why it is imperative that it remains with us today and forever…

The concept of Apostolic Tradition is one of authority and of translation, not one of oral vs. written. Tradition is both oral and written, simultaneously.

But again, we’re talking about authority and translation…

By authority, what is meant is inspired humans having equal authority with the written word which itself was born from that same human inspiration. This human authority did not die with the death of John. Apostolic succession itself is shown biblically, and historically.

The very canonization of the Bible is proof of equal human authority. It could not have been canonized otherwise. In both cases (human and Bible), the inspiration came to only one of them…the humans. They were inspired to write it…they likewise were inspired to teach it. Through succession, they were likewise inspired to canonize it, and to continue to teach it until the end of the age (Christ’s return).

The human inspiration makes possible the proper, authentic translations of Scripture (the other part of Apostolic Tradition), and what we receive is the fruit of the Spirit the Church provides for all.

Dei Verbum says it better than I…

**"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.” **

So, if we had to “list” some Tradition, it might start out looking like this…

• Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
• Seven Sacraments (fountains of grace)
• Role of Mary
• Purgatory

These are not extra-biblical. These are authentic translations of Sacred Scripture, as given by authentic Apostolic Tradition, and which are made possible by virtue of the fact that the Apostles received a fuller deposit of teaching from Christ than could possibly have all been written down. It wasn’t “different” teaching…it was “deeper” teaching of that which Scripture also reveals.

So the debate isn’t over whether oral tradition is important or not, or whether it’s based on Scripture or not. It IS important, and it IS based on Scripture.

The debate, rather, is over whether or not the Bible suddenly became the ONLY authority after the death of the last Apostle. Can the Bible provide for it’s own authentic, consistent teaching to all of Christendom or not? Sola Scripturist’s say Yes. Catholics say No.

God Bless