What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

[BouleTheou]

JimG -

You are in error to assert that Catholics believe in the Material Sufficiency of Scripture. Robert Sungenis and Gerry Matatics hold to the partim-partim theory over against the Material sufficiency view.

“partim-partim” means “partly-partly.” It is the position that “part” of the Christian faith was transmitted to us orally only and the other “part” was transmitted to us in the Scriptures only. And that the two “parts” are different in content. In other words, the oral part is not found in the written part and the written part is not found in the oral part.

These two positions are utterly contradictory to one another and are one of the many reasons you have Traditionalist versus neo-Catholic factions within the Roman Church.

So, I ask again, how can anyone know with certainty which of these opposed positions is the correct one?

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

jprejean -

It doesn’t matter. Whether Scripture is the sole source of revelation that is illuminated by Tradition or whether Tradition is a separate source of revelation is a purely theoretical question. We have access to both, so there’s no need to decide the question.

It matters to Gerry Matatics and Robert Sungenis. It mattered enough for Gerry to get the boot from Catholic Answers years ago.

What is the nature of Tradition? And what is its doctrinal content? Is it extra-Biblical special revelation? If so, tell us what it is?

BouleTheou

 

[JPrejean]

You are in error to assert that Catholics believe in the Material Sufficiency of Scripture. Robert Sungenis and Gerry Matatics hold to the partim-partim theory over against the Material sufficiency view.

That’s not an error. Catholics can believe in material sufficiency or partim-partim as they like.

These two positions are utterly contradictory to one another and are one of the many reasons you have Traditionalist versus neo-Catholic factions within the Roman Church.

I answered this above. They aren’t contradictory in any meaningful sense. The real problem with Sungenis and Matatics is that they consider the Tradition partim to be something other than what the Church has always taught about Tradition, principally because they insist on reading documents anachronistically. You’d swear they had been taught interpretation at a Protestant seminary. Oh, wait…

 

[BouleTheou]

Scott -

I have a grasp of the difference, I was just looking for clarification pehaps with an example.

Ok, here’s an example. I have had Traditionalist Catholics assert to me that there is nothing in Scripture about purgatory, indulgences, or the Marian dogmas. These are the “part” of special revelation from Christ and the apostles that is strictly oral in nature - it is not implicit or explicit in Scripture. Now, many other “neo-Catholics” assert, “no, all of those dogmas are found implicitly in Scripture.”

So, which is it? Which group has the proper, Catholic, view of Tradition?

And why is Rome so vague in her dogmatic pronouncements on the very nature of special revelation itself that such utterly opposed views of it can co-exist, each claiming the blessing of Rome, each able to cite documents in their favor, and each calling the other schismatic?

BouleTheo

 

[Fiat]

Dear Boule Theou:

 You ask some interesting questions and although I haven't been able to read all of your threads, I hope you are finding helpful answers.
 I would like to clarify for you that we as Catholics are not bound to the teachings of Gerry Matatics or Robert Sungenis.  While their insights may be helpful, they don't teach infallibly within the Catholic Church.
 Secondly, I guess I'm a little confused by the title of your thread.  By using the word "essential" do you mean to imply that the Word of God contains "essential" elements and "non-essential" elements?  Do you believe that we can reduce Christ to more or less important parts?  As far as I am aware, we as Christians are called to live from every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Father, not just the ones we find convenient or comfortable.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[BouleTheou]

jprejean -

They aren’t contradictory in any meaningful sense.

Yes they are. How can you not see that? Either all of special revelation is explicit or implicit in Scripture or it is not. Think about it:

Two propositions - one negates the other:

1. all of special revelation is explicit or implicit in Scripture
2. part of special revelation is in Scripture and part of special revelation is NOT in Scripture

That’s called a contradiction. Will you admit it?

BouleTheou

 

[Scott_Waddell]

By the way, if anyone thinks they need to catch up, Patrick has posted the same question at Envoy and has gotten a decent discussion going: envoymagazine.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=369&ARCHIVE= It may help in avoiding reinventing the wheel.

Scott

 

[BouleTheou]

Scott -

Good job! Wow, that was resourceful… Did you do a search using some of what I cut and pasted in?

So, what do you think about the two views of Tradition being contradictory to one another?

Thanks,

BouleTheou

 

[Scott_Waddell]

BouleTheou:

Scott -

Good job! Wow, that was resourceful… Did you do a search using some of what I cut and pasted in?

So, what do you think about the two views of Tradition being contradictory to one another?

Thanks,

BouleTheou

I just entered a search for “partim-partim” and the thread was the very first thing to come up. As far as what I think, I’ll have to do some reseach, because it is new to me.

Scott

 

[Strider]

BouleTheou:

jprejean -

Yes they are. How can you not see that? Either all of special revelation is explicit or implicit in Scripture or it is not. Think about it:

Two propositions - one negates the other:

1. all of special revelation is explicit or implicit in Scripture
2. part of special revelation is in Scripture and part of special revelation is NOT in Scripture

That’s called a contradiction. Will you admit it?

BouleTheou

Boule Theou,
In the most commonly understood sense of the word “contradictioin,” I suppose you could say that your statement is a contradiction, but for Catholics it is moot. This may be why you find the Vatican “vague” on the matter.
Since we use the totality of Scripture AND oral tradition, the source of the doctrine is of less importance than its Magesterial aceptance.
Okay, I answered your question directly. Please return the favor. If Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, and if anyone, on his own, can ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and arrive at the correct interpretation of Scripture, why do Protestant pastors have to attend seminaries to learn the “proper” interpretation of Scripture?

 

[JPrejean]

Yes they are. How can you not see that? Either all of special revelation is explicit or implicit in Scripture or it is not. Think about it:

Two propositions - one negates the other:

1. all of special revelation is explicit or implicit in Scripture
2. part of special revelation is in Scripture and part of special revelation is NOT in Scripture

That’s called a contradiction. Will you admit it?

Sure I’ll admit it; I never denied it. I said it wasn’t a meaningful contradiction. No Catholic dogma has ever turned on whether or not Scripture is materially sufficient, so the fact that these contradictory positions are both acceptable is merely an intellectual curiosity at this point, much like the conflict between Molinists and Thomists. Both Scripture and Tradition are preserved, so the deposit isn’t going to be lost regardless of the form it takes. If it ever matters, I’ll worry about it, but as for now, what significance does the question have?

Edit – Boy, that was seriously redundant after the previous post!

 

[MarkInOregon]

BouleTheou:

What am I missing by believing that all special revelation from God about the Christian faith is in the Bible?

Thanks,

BouleTheou

Boule,

A couple of questions for you.

1. On what grounds do you believe you wouldn’t be missing anything? As far as I can tell Jesus did not write any books and commission his Apostles to write anything down–only to preach. The NT books that we have were not really written as instruction manuals–4 were written to tell the story of Christ and most of the rest were written to address various problems that arose. It doesn’t seem reasonable to assume these books are all we need. Christ left us a Church to pass on his revelation and not a book. This should not be interpreted to imply scripture is not important-as it is very important as the inspired word of God–but only to ask why it is reasonable to assume this is all we need? If all we were to need was a book of inspired scripture it would seem that Christ would have left that first. If all we need is the Scripture how did the earliest Christians know what to do before they had the NT? How did Christians until the printing press have easy access to the Scripture to study and learn their faith?
   I think we often take a 20th century mind set and impose it back on people for whom it would make no sense. Christ left the Church to pass on his revelation because that is what would work best–especially at that time.
2. Why do you refer to “special” revelation from God? Is some revelation from God not special?

In answer to your question: the short answer is: The fullness of what Christ wanted us to know. I’ll have to be more specific later when I have more time and resources that I do not have here.

 

[BouleTheou]

jprejean -

I have no idea what a non-meaningful contradiction is over against a meaningful one. Can you explain the difference and perhaps give some examples?

BouleTheou

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

BouleTheou:

What am I missing by believing that all special revelation from God about the Christian faith is in the Bible?

Thanks,

BouleTheou

1. The canon of scripture
2. The list of essential and non-essential parts of Christianity that must exist in order for the title of this thread to make any sense

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[BouleTheou]

Strider -

In the most commonly understood sense of the word “contradictioin,” I suppose you could say that your statement is a contradiction, but for Catholics it is moot.

Why is it only moot?

This may be why you find the Vatican “vague” on the matter.

It is a fact that the Vatican is ‘vague’ because equally committed Roman Catholic individuals have come up with contradictory interpretations of what the nature and content of “Tradition” are.

Since we use the totality of Scripture AND oral tradition, the source of the doctrine is of less importance than its Magesterial aceptance.

C’mon, Strider… define “tradition” as you just used it in that sentence.

Okay, I answered your question directly. Please return the favor. If Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation, and if anyone, on his own, can ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and arrive at the correct interpretation of Scripture, why do Protestant pastors have to attend seminaries to learn the “proper” interpretation of Scripture?

So we don’t recommit the mistakes of the past. So we honor Christ in our preaching and teaching ministries by being precise and accurate even in the details. So the gospel in all of its free, saving power will go forth unhindered. Every Protestant seminary student I have ever known was saved long before he began his seminary work.

BouleTheou

 

[jimmy]

BouleTheou:

prodromos -

So, the Bible does not contain how to worship God?

BouleTheou

The liturgy and what is in the liturgy is not in the bible.

 

[Strider]

BouleTheou:

Strider -
Why is it only moot?

Strider: Not sure I understant your question. It is moot because the source of the Divine Revelation is equally valid from Scripture or Sacred Tradition

It is a fact that the Vatican is ‘vague’ because equally committed Roman Catholic individuals have come up with contradictory interpretations of what the nature and content of “Tradition” are.

Strider: Equally committed Roman Catholic individuals are not necessarily equally educated or equally catechised individuals.

C’mon, Strider… define “tradition” as you just used it in that sentence.

Strider: Paragraph 78 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

So we don’t recommit the mistakes of the past. So we honor Christ in our preaching and teaching ministries by being precise and accurate even in the details. So the gospel in all of its free, saving power will go forth unhindered. Every Protestant seminary student I have ever known was saved long before he began his seminary work.

Strider: But he apparently need instruction by someone to get it right. He needed more than a prayer to the Holy Spirit.

 

[JimG]

BouleTheou:

JimG -
You are in error to assert that Catholics believe in the Material Sufficiency of Scripture. Robert Sungenis and Gerry Matatics hold to the partim-partim theory over against the Material sufficiency view.

Personally, I wouldn’t rely on either Robert Sungenis or Gerry Matatics for Catholic theology. There are many Catholics and Catholic theologians who do believe in the material sufficiency of scripture. The idea is even mentioned in an article on the Catholic Answers website, entitled, aptly enough, “What Catholics Can Learn From Evangelicals.”

Actually, the Church teaches that there is only one source of Christian revelation, and that is Jesus Christ, the Divine Word of God, with Scripture and Tradition as the two streams flowing from Him as the one source.

We shouldn’t think of Tradition as a set of hidden fact listed somewhere in the archives of the Vatican, but as the living Faith passed down to us by the Apostles.

{Let me give an example. I have some letters from my mother that have been saved over the years. She is no longer with us, so these are valuable reminders of her life. But if we were to get together sometime and talk about the time that she went to Louisville to work in a cigar factory, perhaps someone might say, “Wait a minute! That didn’t happen. It is nowhere in her letters!.” But I would say, “oh yes, it did, because I heard her tell the story many times, and I have told it to others. There is no doubt about it.” The point is that one might have the letters, but one also needs the living tradition of the family to understand her fully.}

 

[jjanderson]

JimG:

Actually, the Church teaches that there is only one source of Christian revelation, and that is Jesus Christ, the Divine Word of God, with Scripture and Tradition as the two streams flowing from Him as the one source.

That is absolutely the BEST definition I have seen of tradition yet. A few years ago as a Protestant I was confronted with the concept of Catholic Tradition, and realized that when it comes to human beings it all boils down to our interpretation, so do we accept the apostles interpretation of our Faith and all that it means, the basis of which came directly from Jesus Christ Himself, or do we accept the interpretation of our Faith of the reformers, the basis of which comes from their own interpretation of the interpretation of the Apostles? Obviously I couldn’t pretend History started in the 16th century anymore, so it was my Christian duty to seek the Truth, and I found it in the Catholic Church. And I have NEVER looked back. Praise God!

 

[metal1633]

C’mon, Strider… define “tradition” as you just used it in that sentence.

The redeemer came and by His Spirit has placed the Word of God in the Mouths of His people, and in the mouths of their children, from one generation to the next, for all time. Oral Tradition.

Isa 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Isa 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.