Why do we need more than scripture?

[CompSciGuy]

I very brief one sentence summary before I start: I am a convert to Catholicism from a devout Protestant family and my father is a Presbyterian minister.

I recently went on vacation to Washington state and my parents were there with me. I didn’t get any sleep on the last night we were there and I was in the hotel lobby by myself when my dad came down and started talking to me about religion. I wasn’t really in the mood for it but I did my best to indulge him. I went through the normal routine of explaining why I believed that the church was apostolic and that the deposit of faith of the church is the only reasonable standard for orthodoxy. He understood where I was coming from but the question I couldn’t apparently answer to his satisfaction was why do we need more than scripture. I told him that the New Testament is not comprehensive, it is not written in such a way that it expounds upon every facet of the Christian faith but is rather a set of accounts, letters and one vision. He said that oral tradition is not reliable because it can change so much as it is passed down through the generations. I said that the writings of the early fathers are evidence that in fact it did not change. However he brought up a point that is hard to argue, for example, the Catholic Church’s position on heretics, especially Protestants, appears to be very different at the council of Trent than it was at Vatican II. Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective. Anyways it is difficult to argue with protestants because they are so sincere and are able to make it sound as if their standard of sola scriptura is a very honest and reliable way of living a Christian life and that nothing more should be necessary.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would answer that question with a question - Why do we need Scripture? Because God has divinely revealed through it. So why do we “need” Tradition? Because God has revealed through it. So that’s the real question at hand - has or has not God revealed through Sacred Tradition?

 

[TARRAT]

Another point is that the Church lasted for hundreds of years before there was an actual book of “Scriptures”. The Church operated on the old testament and tradition until the “Scriptures” were gathered and decided upon. The Holy Spirit was in the Church which, by His guidance, gathered the “Scriptures”.

 

[Gorgias]

He understood where I was coming from but the question I couldn’t apparently answer to his satisfaction was why do we need more than scripture.

On one hand, we can respond that there’s nowhere in the Gospels or the epistles that Jesus or anyone said, “all you need is Scripture.” That in itself should be all we need to say. (Of course, it helps to add that yes, Scripture is good; yes, Scripture is necessary; but no, there’s nowhere (outside of Protestant doctrine) that says that Scripture alone is sufficient.)

He said that oral tradition is not reliable because it can change so much as it is passed down through the generations.

For something like 30-70 years, oral tradition was how the story of Jesus’ life was told. If the Holy Spirit protected the apostles from ‘changing’ Jesus’ message, why is counter-intuitive that the Holy Spirit should protect the successors of the apostles in a similar way?

when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived.

Yes, the true meaning of the Scripture can be derived, but that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily derived. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it forces every ‘sincere Protestant’ to conclude that ‘my interpretation is Spirit-breathed, but your interpretation that contradicts mine must be in error’. In other words, Sola Scriptura forces Christians to divide the Body of Christ!

 

[Incomplete]

Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective. Anyways it is difficult to argue with protestants because they are so sincere and are able to make it sound as if their standard of sola scriptura is a very honest and reliable way of living a Christian life and that nothing more should be necessary.

If he thinks that everyone who reads scripture systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit will come to the true meaning, that means that anyone he disagrees with on matters of salvation (or even on what pertains to salvation) has not read Scripture systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I would argue that for 2000 years the Church has done just that, and has come to the conclusion that Tradition (which pre-dated Scripture) is necessary.

God either gave us a way to know Truth or He didn’t. If He gave it to us through systematic reading of Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then when two people disagree on matters of salvation, how are we to know who has read it in that particular way? How do we ever know Truth? Everything becomes an opinion.

 

[JerryZ]

The very fact that there 40+ Thousand denomination each claiming to have the “truth” of the Bible attests to the fact that we can very easily mis interpret the Bible.

The Bible was of NO easy understanding when there was ONLY the OT. And we have an example when the Eunuch was reading the Book of Isaiah and could not understand it.
He was not an uneducated man, we read that he was a minister, the very fact that he could read also attests to his erudition. And yet the Apostle had to open up the Book to him.

The New Testament is no different.
If there are mis interpretattions of the New Testament who is the Authority that will settle the dispute?
Obviously the 40000 denominations do not have one. Otherwise there would be ONLY ONE (denomination).

Look at the astounding variation of beliefs:
Some believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Some threw away the Sacraments instituded by Jesus Himself.
Some believe the Sacraments are mere symbols.
Some allow divorce disregarding Jesus own words.
Some allow murdering unborn babies.
And on and on.

THAT, is what “Sola Scriptura” gets you…

–

 

[Incomplete]

However he brought up a point that is hard to argue, for example, the Catholic Church’s position on heretics, especially Protestants, appears to be very different at the council of Trent than it was at Vatican II.

Are you talking about “No salvation outside of the Church”?

 

[ServantPD]

We (yes, the Catholic Church) compiled the New Testament for it to be read alongside the rest of the Scriptures during the Liturgy, not to be seen as the ultimate source of truth, as we have, as you said, the Church Fathers, the Sacred Tradition and the standard Deposit of Faith to keep ourselves in orthodoxy. If you contradict these components by just relying in one of them, you’re contradicting Christ. If you’re using all three of them to drive to viable theological conclusions, you’re technically a Catholic.

Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective.

Just summon the Westboro Baptist Church into your argument of the failed denominations. I doubt that he (or even He, if you get my meaning) knows how that came to be.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Another point is that the Church lasted for hundreds of years before there was an actual book of “Scriptures”. The Church operated on the old testament and tradition until the “Scriptures” were gathered and decided upon. The Holy Spirit was in the Church which, by His guidance, gathered the “Scriptures”.

His response would be that there was a general understanding of what writings were inspired even in the early church before the scriptures were compiled, and that these were heavily meditated upon in the early church. This is true as we can see echoes of the New Testament in the writings of, for example, Ignatius of Antioch; however the point I was trying to make was that the early Church was the Catholic Church, both in substance and in belief, and believed in apostolic authority. I guess the part he has trouble with is that he doesn’t believe that the church (or any church for that matter) is incapable of teaching error.

 

[Incomplete]

His response would be that there was a general understanding of what writings were inspired even in the early church before the scriptures were compiled, and that these were heavily meditated upon in the early church. This is true as we can see echoes of the New Testament in the writings of, for example, Ignatius of Antioch; however the point I was trying to make was that the early Church was the Catholic Church, both in substance and in belief, and believed in apostolic authority. I guess the part he has trouble with is that he doesn’t believe that the church (or any church for that matter) is incapable of teaching error.

There were several books that some thought were to the level of Scripture that ultimately weren’t included in the Canon…and the original Christians had no letters or New Testament Gospels at all.

If he doesn’t believe that any church is incapable of teaching error, he doesn’t believe that God provided a way to know Truth. And if churches don’t know what we preach is truth and what is error (because, presumably, they would stop the error), then we can’t really know anything.

 

[ServantPD]

His response would be that there was a general understanding of what writings were inspired even in the early church before the scriptures were compiled, and that these were heavily meditated upon in the early church. This is true as we can see echoes of the New Testament in the writings of, for example, Ignatius of Antioch; however the point I was trying to make was that the early Church was the Catholic Church, both in substance and in belief, and believed in apostolic authority. I guess the part he has trouble with is that he doesn’t believe that the church (or any church for that matter) is incapable of teaching error.

Can’t you just bring up Ignatius of Antioch, for instance? He was the earliest writer to defend the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Are you talking about “No salvation outside of the Church”?

Essentially yes… it is a very difficult point to argue because the sentiment is very clear in the phrase “let him be anathema” (Trent) until we got the phrase “by no fault of their own” (Vatican II). This definitely sounds like a change in church teaching rather than a mere “clarification” on matters of faith.

Also this did not come up in the conversation but has in many other conversations: the Marian dogmas. They are difficult to justify as being part of the apostolic deposit of faith versus being innovations as they sound very superfluous to the gospel (this is coming from a former Protestant).

 

[CompSciGuy]

Can’t you just bring up Ignatius of Antioch, for instance? He was the earliest writer to defend the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.

I have brought that up before… he claimed that Ignatius wasn’t suggesting that the bishop himself had any special power to protect him from error but rather that he was pointing out that the bishop himself happened to be teaching correct doctrine. And as far as Ignatius’ comments on the Eucharist were concerned he told me that I was reading transubstantiation into the writings and that I was merely confused by the language. Not sure how else I could possibly interpret that passage…

 

[CompSciGuy]

If he doesn’t believe that any church is incapable of teaching error, he doesn’t believe that God provided a way to know Truth. And if churches don’t know what we preach is truth and what is error (because, presumably, they would stop the error), then we can’t really know anything.

The way to the truth, in his words, is through the scriptures. He constantly reiterates that we should compare what our church teaches to what the scripture says.

 

[Church_Militant]

but the question I couldn’t apparently answer to his satisfaction was why do we need more than scripture.

My response is because the New Testament says we do, or else St. Paul was messed up in telling Timothy that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. ( See 1st Timothy 3:15)

for example, the Catholic Church’s position on heretics, especially Protestants, appears to be very different at the council of Trent than it was at Vatican II.

He forgets that Trent applied to those who had departed from the faith and VII applies to those many generations down the line who have embraced the same errors but were not Catholics to begin with. The CCC states

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective.

Very true, but that is precisely your argument, that the objective facts clearly refute the subjectivity of that wishful thinking. Hence, ignoring the 2,000 years of commentary and teaching from the ECF and the Church is simply making a huge opening for all such subjective errors.

Anyways it is difficult to argue with protestants because they are so sincere and are able to make it sound as if their standard of sola scriptura is a very honest and reliable way of living a Christian life and that nothing more should be necessary.

I agree, and that does indeed sound good, but neither scripture or experience shows it to be true…and that is your response.

His response would be that there was a general understanding of what writings were inspired even in the early church before the scriptures were compiled, and that these were heavily meditated upon in the early church. This is true as we can see echoes of the New Testament in the writings of, for example, Ignatius of Antioch; however the point I was trying to make was that the early Church was the Catholic Church, both in substance and in belief, and believed in apostolic authority. I guess the part he has trouble with is that he doesn’t believe that the church (or any church for that matter) is incapable of teaching error.

And of course, were it not for the promise of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ to His church he would be quite correct. Again…the problem for so many is that instead of seeing what is in the Bible, they sort of take what they want to believe and insert it into the text by their private interpretation in order to make their case. Many people do not examine these teachings to see if they are consistent with the passages cited as well as the context of the rest of the Word of God, which leaves them vulnerable to this and many other errors.

The way to the truth, in his words, is through the scriptures. He constantly reiterates that we should compare what our church teaches to what the scripture says.

Which is fine, but as you can see above the result will not be what he expects. You yourself found this out in your journey into the Catholic faith did you not?

 

[sw85]

Prudential questions like how to deal with heretics can change because they aren’t doctrinal questions. Put another way, Dignitatis Humanae is not a doctrinal document, it is a tactical document. It deals with the question of how we are to deal with heresy in the here-and-now, the concrete conditions of today, which are not the concrete conditions of 16th century Europe. People can disagree in good faith about its prescriptions and those same prescriptions may well change some day.

 

[hazcompat]

Blessed Fulton J. Sheen

A young Wife, who had been taking Instructions for a Year, told the Writer she could Believe everything in the Faith, except the Eucharist. Upon inquiring-about her Husband, it was learned that he was in the Pacific, on Military Duty. In answer to further questions, she admitted that she Corresponded-with him every Two (2) Days, and that she had his Photograph before her, in the House.

We argued there was nothing Wanting-for Perfect Happiness. What more could she Want, than the Constant-Memory of him, through the Photograph and a Written-communication, in which Heart poured-out-to Heart. But, she Protested that she could never be Truly Happy, except-through Union (1)-with her Husband.

But, it was retorted, if Human Love craves Oneness (1), shall not Divine Love? If Husband and Wife seek-to-be One (1) in the Flesh, shall not the Christian and Christ crave-for that Oneness (1) with One-another? The Memory of the Christ Who lived Twenty (20) Centuries ago, the recalling-of His Mercy and Miracles through Memory, the correspondence-with Him by-reading the Scriptures – all these are Satisfying, but they do not Satisfy Love. There must-be, on the Level-of Grace, something Unitive (1) with Divine Love. Every Heart seeks a Happiness outside it, and since Perfect Love is God, then the Heart-of Man and the Heart-of Christ must, in some-way, Fuse (1). In Human Friendship, the other-Person is Loved as another-Self, or the other-Half of One’s Soul. Divine Friendship must have its ‘Mutual-Indwelling’: “He who dwells-in Love, dwells-in God, and God in him” (1John 4:17). This Aspiration-of the Soul for its Ecstasy is fulfilled-in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Peace

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The way to the truth, in his words, is through the scriptures. He constantly reiterates that we should compare what our church teaches to what the scripture says.

That. Right there.

That’s the point about why we need Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

What he’s constantly comparing to is his interpretation of scripture.

We need an authoritative interpretor just as the Constitution needs the Supreme Court (a weak analogy since Christ didn’t promise that the Supreme Court would have the benefit of the Holy Spirit).

 

[Incomplete]

The way to the truth, in his words, is through the scriptures. He constantly reiterates that we should compare what our church teaches to what the scripture says.

Except he does not interpret Scripture the way we do, or the way members of denominations he is not a part of do. In fact, we would say that what our Church teaches does line up with Scripture. Why would we ever choose books for the canon that did not go along with our beliefs?

God either left us a way to know truth or He didn’t, and it can’t just be individual interpretation of Scripture. If it is, then there is no real way to know truth.

Or, in other words, HOW do we know the Truth through Scripture? I know you earlier mentioned through systematic reading the the Holy Spirit, but it’s the same response … people still disagree.

 

[Incomplete]

Essentially yes… it is a very difficult point to argue because the sentiment is very clear in the phrase “let him be anathema” (Trent) until we got the phrase “by no fault of their own” (Vatican II). This definitely sounds like a change in church teaching rather than a mere “clarification” on matters of faith.

Also this did not come up in the conversation but has in many other conversations: the Marian dogmas. They are difficult to justify as being part of the apostolic deposit of faith versus being innovations as they sound very superfluous to the gospel (this is coming from a former Protestant).

I am wondering just how clear the sentiment is to Protestants. I know that some Protestants think we mean something like “going to hell” when we say "anathema. But that’s not quite what it means, or meant in the Council of Trent. I got this from a CAF article:

When the Catholic Church uses the term, such as at the Council of Trent and in its official documents, it is in the sense of excommunication or being cut off from the life-giving unity of the Church. If someone knowingly and publicly denies a defined (de fidei definita) doctrine of the Catholic Church, he can be formally declared to be excommunicated, meaning that he no longer enjoys unity with the Catholic Church.

If you want to read more, including various ways it would be used in Scripture, here’s the source: catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-church-condemn-those-who-disagree-with-its-teachings

At any rate, it is still true that if someone knowingly and publicly denies a doctrine of the Church, he can be declared to be excommunicated.