Sola Scriptura
-
Hmm....Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) Mainly on Sola Scriptura vs Sola Verbum Dei
2) Sacred Tradition has been used in writings since the very beginnings of the Church. Irenaus is a prime example. Tradition gave rise to the Bible. If not for Tradition, there will be no Bible to speak off.
3) - 5)
Once again. I have no desire to discuss on 1-2.
Icemoon could answer you. -
As u wish.Originally posted by M©+square:Hmm....
Once again. I have no desire to discuss on 1-2.
Icemoon could answer you.
But remember, nowhere in Scripture does it say which books are inspired. Its because through Tradition, do we know which books are inspired.
Tradition gave birth to the Bible, Bible affirms Tradition and with both, the Church is truly 'the pinnacle and bulwark of Truth' (1 Tim 3:15). -
I have a question.
Why do Catholics call it Sola Verbum Dei? Don't you think this one suits the Protestant rally cry better?
It is a joke to think Irenaeus's four corners argument is part of Sola Verbum Dei. -
Sola Verbum Dei means Word of God alone.Originally posted by Icemoon:I have a question.
Why do Catholics call it Sola Verbum Dei? Don't you think this one suits the Protestant rally cry better?
It is a joke to think Irenaeus's four corners argument is part of Sola Verbum Dei.
Word of God is found both in Tradition and Scripture. However it is wrong to separate both as Tradition gave rise to Scripture and Scripture gives credence to Tradition. How else can you explain the Bible Canon, the hynotic union(dont know spelling), the holy trinity and so on.
Tertullian sums it up nicely.
"We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our teaching." Tertullian, Purity 9,1 (c. A.D. 200).
Tradition or oral apostolic teachings are used to intepretate Scripture. This is contrasted from Sola Scriptura, whereby private intepretation of Scriputure is used to intepretate itself.
Irenaus selected 4 Gospels and then gave the reason WHY there are 4 gospels. I read his works. It includes many other '4' found in OT.
And Irenaus was one of the first Apostolic Fathers to mention Tradition explicitly.
"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith...But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition...
...And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested 'on the contrary' in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth...
...And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.' Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).
And yes my orignal question of where in Scripture does it say Scripture alone is the infallible source of faith? -
With the canonised scripture, there is already a great deal of disagreement over translations and interpretation. Now if you throw in tradition, the souces of which are hotly disputed, we have a church that is even more divided. Tradition should be respected but should it be accorded so much respect is the crux of the problem.
The number of available manuscripts covering the teachings of the early fathers, such as the letters of Polycarp and Clement, are fewer and and of poorer quality than those of the New Testament. Who is to say what constitutes the right tradition? Tradition that is passed down by the church? Which church? Does one distinguish the difference between a tradition passed down by the apostles or one by the church hierachy, based on a cleric's interpretation of scriptures? Who is an apostle? Some modern day church leaders call themselves apostles too. Are their teachings apostolic traditions?
The reliance on both Scriptures and tradition results in a plethora of teachings and one can very well pick and choose which tradition you like. In the time of Christ, the Jews had the Scriptures, but they also had the traditions of the elders (not entirely observed by Jesus), which was why they would not eat without ritual washing (Mk 7:3). In the same way, the Jews could bypass Scriptural requirements to support their parents by relying on a oral tradition known as corban. -
Oral Tradition is not written....thats why its called ORAL tradition.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:With the canonised scripture, there is already a great deal of disagreement over translations and interpretation. Now if you throw in tradition, the souces of which are hotly disputed, we have a church that is even more divided. Tradition should be respected but should it be accorded so much respect is the crux of the problem.
The number of available manuscripts covering the teachings of the early fathers, such as the letters of Polycarp and Clement, are fewer and and of poorer quality than those of the New Testament. Who is to say what constitutes the right tradition? Tradition that is passed down by the church? Which church? Does one distinguish the difference between a tradition passed down by the apostles or one by the church hierachy, based on a cleric's interpretation of scriptures? Who is an apostle? Some modern day church leaders call themselves apostles too. Are their teachings apostolic traditions?
The reliance on both Scriptures and tradition results in a plethora of teachings and one can very well pick and choose which tradition you like. In the time of Christ, the Jews had the Scriptures, but they also had the traditions of the elders (not entirely observed by Jesus), which was why they would not eat without ritual washing (Mk 7:3). In the same way, the Jews could bypass Scriptural requirements to support their parents by relying on a oral tradition known as corban.
Oral tradition refers to the truths that Christ taught the apostles. So when you say "written" there is no document from which to quote. That, however, doesn't mean that there are no oral traditions, just like textual variants don't mean we don't have true Scriptures. Oral traditions include the canon of Scripture, Mary's perpetual virginity, Christ's divinity, Christ's two natures and two wills. These are truths that have been handed down to us from Christ and the apostles.
The Church does not subscribe to your definition of tradition. You cannot divorce the "transmission" of tradition from tradition itself, since tradition, by its very definition means "to hand on."
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 81:
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
Further, St. Paul commands us to obey the oral traditions in 2 Thess 2:14 .(Since the Scriptures are the living Word of God, this must mean that there are oral traditions for us 21st century humans to follow. Otherwise, Paul's command would be meaningless. Therefore, it is wrong to claim, as you do, that "an infallible oral tradition does not exist." If that were true, then God through Paul would not have ordered us to follow oral tradition, for God does not command us to do the impossible. (Thats why Scripture doesn't tell me to complete my homework on time)
How do we know the Tradition is true? Look at all the doctrines you hold. I bet nearly all of it is a result of Sacred Tradition (as listed above). Christ also granted the gift of teaching doctrinal truth to his Church.
And what Church u asked? Simple, which Church existed in the first century??? And who inherited the Apostles office? Simple, the Bishops through Apostolic Succession. Every Bishop can trace himself to the Bishop. To make it clearer, every Pope can trace himself to Peter....search for a list of Popes then.
And please give the Bible verse in support of Sola Scriptura or else ironically it becomes a tradition as well and by its own definition...un-christian -
Can Mr Pope tell us what exactly constitute the Oral Tradition? Which are authoritative and which are not?
For example, does the Church has anything like the Islam Hadith? You know .. a proper document we can refer to. -
Hmm .. the Oral Tradition in Islam and Judaism are written down.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Oral Tradition is not written....thats why its called ORAL tradition. -
Tradition is not written down but is rather dynamic. Vladimir Lossky famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.
The word "tradition" is taken from the Latin 'trado, tradere' meaning to hand over, to deliver, or to bequeth. The teachings of Scripture are written down in the Bible, and are handed on, not only in writing, but also in the lives of those who live according to its teachings. The teachings of Tradition are not written down, but are lived and are handed on by the lives of those who lived according to its teachings, according to the example of Christ and the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). This perpetual handing on of the teachings of Tradition is called a living Tradition; it is the transmission of the teachings of Tradition from one generation to the next.
The teachings of Traditions are written down like the Canon of the Bible, Holy Trinity, Christ having 2 wills and 2 natures, the perputual virginity etc etc.
The Magisterium has a role in deciding authoritatively which truths are a part of Sacred Tradition. However, the main means of transmission of the teachings of Tradition is the lives of all those who live according to the Way of life handed down from the time of Christ and the Apostles.
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach -
I hope this quotes on how Tradition is not written by rather is taught or transmitted via the Councils or the Magisteruim helps....
Epiphanius of Salamis
"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
"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]).
John Chrysostom
"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]). -
Beginning ur journey to Islam???Originally posted by Icemoon:Can Mr Pope tell us what exactly constitute the Oral Tradition? Which are authoritative and which are not?
For example, does the Church has anything like the Islam Hadith? You know .. a proper document we can refer to. -
So vague. In other words, it is up to the Church to define what is tradition.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The teachings of Traditions are written down like the Canon of the Bible, Holy Trinity, Christ having 2 wills and 2 natures, the perputual virginity etc etc.
In short, no evidence for tradition.
What you cannot bring out any evidence, you say it is in the bible.
When it is not in the bible, you say it is in the writings of the church fathers.
-
I quote Islam because you people are hopelessly unfamiliar with Judaism.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Beginning ur journey to Islam???
If you want the example from Judaism, it would be the Talmud. -
I propose the Icemoon and Nicholas discuss this through PM.
-
and let my PM get spammed?
-
Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone ...
a much used verse during the early years of the Reformation
--- a little background, the reformers (like Martin Luther) when they first used this, its not about challenging Church doctrine or Traditions, its about reforming the Church from its corrupted practices, traditions and teachings (example: the selling and buying of indulgence, Pope Leo X)
To add my own opinion
THE RULE OF FAITH & PRACTICE.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.
What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.
In what sense do Protestants affirm the perspicuity of Scripture?
Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly obscure until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.
~taken from Sola Scriptura by A.A. Hodge (1823-1886)
Sola Scriptura to me is that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced.
It does not means everything is contained in the Bible, it just means the essential article of faith and rule of practice are and can be found in the Bible.
It does means that it is simple enough that the least instructed Christian may learn at once the foundational truths of our salvation, yet on the other hand the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies.