P
PRmerger
Guest
Catholic scholars proclaim that the Bible does not necessarily need to teach SS for SS to be true?
Can you please cite some of these Catholic scholars who maintain this, Simka?
- Status
Can you please cite some of these Catholic scholars who maintain this, Simka?
J
joe370
Guest
Was Augustine wrong about the authority of the CC and tradition?
Code:
"If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, 'I do not believe'? Indeed, **I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" **(Against the Letter of Mani Called 'The Foundation' 5:6).
"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, 'that we should go back to the fountain, that is,** to Apostolic Tradition,** and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,' is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and **which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition**, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
S
Simka
Guest
Perhaps I was trying to be too succinct. Let me draw it out for you. It is not necessary for the Bible to explicitly proclaim a doctrine – any doctrine – for that doctrine to be true. If it is implicit in Scripture – that is, it may be reasonably derived from Scripture – it is equally valid. This is an accepted practice throughout the CC.
To cite one example of the position I am referring to, consider the doctrine of the Trinity – widely accepted, acknowledged as Truth by Catholic scholars, even though it is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture. It is, however, a logical derivation of Scriptural principles.
I only maintain that SS falls into the same category. What is today regarded as the doctrine of sola Scriptura was a common practice among the leaders and teachers of the early church, a practice logically derived from Scripture (although it was not given a specific name or title until it was formulated as such centuries later. The principles were true nonetheless).
S
Simka
Guest
It is true that the early Church held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical observances, customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.
An example of this is the 2nd-century controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain churches celebrated it on a different day from others, but each group claimed that its particular practice was handed down directly from the apostles.
There are numerous practices (listed by Basil the Great) in which the Church engaged and which were held to be of Apostolic origin, but which no one practises today. Such appeals to Apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless in reference to doctrines of the Church.
Can you cite one doctrine of the faith that is based on Apostolic Tradition but is not contained in Scripture? … (continued)
S
Simka
Guest
(continued from #239)
If such traditions did exist, and were of such importance, why did Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, not mention them in his teaching lectures? Instead, what he did was to denounce any teaching or doctrine that was not dependent on Scripture.
Can you list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thess. 2:15, which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians?
It was the belief and practice of the early Church that the only special revelation from God that was committed to the Apostles and which man still possessed was the written Scriptures.
This is the principle adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.
The contents and precise doctrines which the CC claims derive from “Apostolic Tradition” and which are binding on men, have never been defined. Skeptics have charged that the simple reason this has not been done is that such “Apostolic tradition” does not exist.
If such traditions did exist, and were of such importance, why did Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, not mention them in his teaching lectures? Instead, what he did was to denounce any teaching or doctrine that was not dependent on Scripture.
Can you list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thess. 2:15, which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians?
It was the belief and practice of the early Church that the only special revelation from God that was committed to the Apostles and which man still possessed was the written Scriptures.
This is the principle adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.
S
Simka
Guest
This does not agree with Vatican I and Vatican II, the results of which were that it was God who discerned the canon, and the CC eventually discovered it. I have no doubt that it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But the inspired Word of God was in use and in practice, an authoritative standard among the Apostles, and read in the churches, before the CC made that discovery.
S
Simka
Guest
It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority. (Only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ had such apostolic authority [Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1]). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it would follow that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament.
J
joe370
Guest
What do you mean when you say the CC discovered it? Which church in the world today preserved the canon for the first 400 years of Christianity? Were those churches, in which the scriptures were read, Catholic, non-Catholic or something else? Please be specific.
Church leaders like Ignatius of Antioch for example…Did Ignatius of Antioch belong to the present day CC, or a different CC? If different then could you please identify that catholic church in the world today? It’s Jesus’ catholic church so we know it cannot fail.The earliest use of the word Catholic we see is from Ignatius of Antioch around 107-110AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Here’s the quote:
“Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
S
Simka
Guest
I’m not sure where your uncertainty lies. If it is in my use of “CC” meaning the Catholic Church, I only picked up on a commonly used abbreviation.
If you are confused by my use of the word “discovered”, you’ll have to ask the writers that reported on Vatican I and Vatican II for clarification. I can only surmise this was a phraseology meant to differentiate the creative work of God from the recognition and acceptance of that work by the Church.
J
joe370
Guest
I never said that they were not found in scripture. Let’s assume you are right and that the Holy Spirit no longer guides Jesus’ church and that special revelation from God was committed to the Apostles only, namely the scriptures i.e. we are left with the infallible word of God with no one to infallibly interpret it via the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Or maybe I misunderstood you? How can you and I know what truth is regarding any one teaching, especially those such as the Eucharist, with diverging interpretations? For example, my sister believes that Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin i.e. she had other sons and daughters, and I say that she did, and we both defer to sacred scripture to make our point. If you are right then there is no way for us to know - correct? I am shifting the focus to the interpretation of scripture. Even the reformers divided over the interpretation of the Eucharist.
J
joe370
Guest
J
joe370
Guest
When I ask non-Catholic family members and friends if the CC to which the apostles belonged, (as well as their successors such as Ignatius of Antioch who claimed to belong to the CC) still exists today, they say no. How sad that would be if that were true…
S
Simka
Guest
But this is the entire crux of the argument over SS … the contention that the Scriptures contain all knowledge necessary for salvation. If all other necessary teaching is duplicated in Scripture, then Scripture is sufficient.
Whoa! Stop right there! On the contrary, I insist that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church … the body of Christ, comprised of all believers.
Well, yes, and no. Remember, as I have said before, SS does not insist that Scripture is to be read, and studied, and its teachings learned, in isolation. Through prayer, and tradition, and the teaching of the church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may interpret Scripture. Can we say our every interpretation is infallible? Not in this life.
You are correct; they did. But I don’t think this bears directly on the SS principle that Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. In other questions of less significance than our eternal salvation, we may not know the real answers until the day we see Jesus again, face to face. To quote your example, one believer may hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity, another may not. Whichever position you hold on this issue, your salvation is not directly affected.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Simka -
Please answer PR’s question below. I’d like to know what Catholic scholars proclaim Sola Scriptura is implicit in the bible…is this what you are saying??
The other question that I have…is when did anyone first come up with the idea that Sola Scriptura is implicit in the bible and was believed so by the early Church.
Pork
P
Porknpie
Guest
Simka, what do you believe the word gospel means?
Can you list the books the Irenaeus calls “Scriptures” at the time he said this in the late 2nd century?
Are you saying that in the late 2nd century…that “scriptures” above ='s the “bible” ?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I believe that what Simka meant is that Catholic scholars agree that not every single doctrine must be explicitly proclaimed in Scripture. He then applies this to mean that SS need not be explicitly outlined in the Bible.
While he is correct in that the Church does proclaim that doctrines need not be found explicitly in the Scriptures, he forgets to add that the Church also has Sacred Tradition to guide us in the development of this doctrine.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You have omitted a very, very important aspect of the Catholic paradigm “it is not necessary for the Bible to explicitly proclaim a doctrine”, and that is this: the lens of Sacred Tradition is required in order to see these doctrines in the Scriptures.
What you are saying is analogous to this:
Let’s say you are an “English only” activist.
I am advocating for a Bilingual society.
You say: well, you yourself speak English! And you teach in English!
You forget to mention, however, that I also speak Spanish and teach in Spanish.
Very important detail, don’t you think?
Actually, no. It is not a logical derivation of Scriptural principles (as evidenced by a large number of denominations who are Scripture Alone advocates who claim that God is NOT Trinitarian).
You come to an understanding of the dogma of the Trinity through Sacred Tradition, Simka.
You could not extract the dogma of the Trinity through a reading of the Scriptures.
Rather, the Scriptures reflect the teaching of the Trinity which was proclaimed through Sacred Tradition.
LOL! The “early church” did not have the Bible, Simka. You do know that for 400 years there was no codifed book to which the early Christians appealed, right?
400 years. That’s like from the time of the Pilgrims arriving on Plymouth Rock to current times, to cite a reference from American history.
That’s a veryyyyyy long time, don’t you think, to not be Sola Scriptura.
S
Simka
Guest
Nope. What I said was that even Catholic scholars agree, having a doctrine – any doctrine – presented explicitly in the Bible is not a requirement for it to be regarded as biblical. If the doctrine under consideration is implicit - that is, reasonably and logically derived from scriptural principles – it is equally as valid as if it were explicit.
I can’t answer that, but I suspect it was soon after the widespread acceptance of the common practice was first challenged. When that was, and who did it, I don’t know.
But what we do know is that in the time immediately after the apostolic era, the principle of sola Scriptura – the belief that the Bible on its own was of sufficient authority to decide doctrinal issues – was commonly practised by church leaders. So far as I can tell, it didn’t carry the title “sola Scriptura”, but the principles were well established and widely applied.
Even before that, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting this and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions.
He did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to overrule the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Since comparisons have been made between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy.
Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible, staring with Moses, frequently warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).
It is evident by their writings that many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, this seems to be arguing too little. It appears that you are again proposing a Sola Old Testament doctine, for, of course, St. Paul could not have been referring to the NT which was not yet written at the time of his command.
S
Simka
Guest
The teaching of the Trinity was proclaimed in early church writings at least as far back as the 2nd century. Initially it generated much controversy, and was not codified for another 200 years.
I get the sense that your window is very narrow. I know that, in addition to the entire Old Testament, the writings of the Apostles were regarded by the early church as the Inspired Word of God, long before there was a “codified book”. So if you object to my summarizing these writings as “the Bible” prior to its codification, then please forgive my over-generalization. Let’s just settle for what the early church fathers called them … “Scripture”.
You do know that, even before the Apostolic era ended, Peter called Paul’s writing “Scripture”, right? You do know that, one generation later, during the 2nd century, the Old Testament and the Apostolic writings were routinely appealed to as “Scripture” by virtue of their acknowledged inspiration, right?
- Status