Scripture and Tradition

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY view...




Yes, there is an epistemological issue here that divides Christianity. The question is: WHAT Authority do we look to judge who/what is correct? WHAT is the be the FINAL NORM - the rule, standard, plumbline, canon. In epistemology, this is called the "norma normans" - the "norm that norms."



There are some 2,000,000,000 Christians in the world - at least an equal number once lived. All of these four billion plus Christians had/have viewpoints and opinions. Are they all correct at all points? Is there no way to know? Is it just relativism? Do we just flip a coin? Do we just pray about it and "feel" who or what is correct? Do we look to who stated what first or louded? Do we do a poll and see which view is more popular? Do we just decide that some individual person or congregation or denomination is correct because they self-claim that they are? There are Christians that embrace all these epistemological systems of norming.



There are two major viewpoints here, two epistemological principles often used for this in theology:


Sola Scriptura.

This principle says that NO ONE is right simply because they self-claim that they are. NO individual person, congregation or denomination is unaccountable for self-claims and teachings.

ALL are accountable. And not to themselves or their own chosen "Tradition" or own chosen leadership or own interpretations, applications and history. They are accountable to a FINAL, ultimate Norm or Authority OUTSIDE and ABOVE them, and Sola Scriptura embraces the Bible for that purpose.

While Sola Scriptura does not deny that accepting the Bible as True, Inspired, Apostolic, Authoritative and First Century does involve faith (as nearly everything in Christianity does), those that embrace the principle point to evidence that supports such and that 99.9% of Christians do embrace it as such - and have for 1,900 to 1,600 years (depending on what NT book you are speaking of). That, in and of itself, is strong support for it's role as the norma normans (the Norm that norms) - the Standard, the Rule, the Plumbling, the Canon.

In any case, all self-claims and teachings are subject to the Bible.
Accountability is required.



Tradition.


The Roman Catholic and the LDS are the classic examples here, embracing that the FINAL Authority, Rule, Standard, Plumbline, Canon, Nome for the teachings and self-claims of a denomination are the teachings and self-claims of the denomination.

Functionally, it's complex. For the RC Denomination, the FINAL Authority or Standard or Norm for it's self-claims and teachings is actually occupied by THREE different things:
1. The Bible PLUS
2. "Tradition" as the RC Denomination understands it and fallibly interprets it in evolving, developing ways, PLUS
3. "Magisterium" - the human leaders of the RCC - which their interpreted understanding of "Tradition" says alone has Authority.

These three things are EQUAL and INSEPARABLY in Authority. Actually, this is taken to such an extreme that they are actually seen as one and the same thing - just different aspects of the same reality (Catholics will sometimes even say that the Bible is just a product of their particular institutional denomination and a part of their denomination's Tradition!!!!!!). Because these 3 things are ALL equally and inseparably True and Authoritative, they obviously must fully agree (no conflict being functionally possible), which is also a teaching of the RCC. Therefore, of course, the Bible MUST mean EXACTLY what the "Tradition" of the RCC and the "Magisterium" of the RCC says it does (any other possible conclusion being functionally impossible). It's as tight of a circular and self-authenticating system as can be created.

To make matters even more complex, the "Tradition" that the RCC points to doesn't exist - there is no corpus of such, and never has been. It's simply what the RCC "understands" it to be - as the self-same denomination says. And this "understanding" is a fallible, evolving, developing thing - yet it exists it "comes directly from the Apostles in the First Century." From the above paragraph, it can be seen that functionally this "Tradition" is the "norma normans" - the Norm that norms - for it's own self. Furthermore, this "Tradition" is the source for their Magisterium - the third leg of their NORMING process; because it's their understanding of what "Tradition" is and their evolving, fallable, developing interpretation of this "understanding" that is the basis, the "evidence" the "norm" for the Magisterium and the claims their denomination makes for itself.

This system has one side effect that is much appreciated by Catholics. Because it's functionally impossible for the RC Denomination to be wrong about anything it self-claims or teaches, therefore all it self-claims and teaches is normed as correct. Some Catholics realize this is just the only possible conclusion of the epistemological system they have embraced, but some don't.


Evaluations.

No one can "prove" an epistemological principle. And it is principles we are talking about, not doctrines. It's the way we NORM doctrines, not a doctrine itself. No one can "prove" that the Bible is correct or Authoritative or inspired. No one can "prove" that the Roman Catholic Denomination (or the LDS) is essentially "the one holy catholic church" or that it was given some unseen, unwritten "Tradition" by the Apostles directly - Dogmas (things we must believe) that the Apostles chose NOT to record in the Bible but to tell the RC Denomination instead, or that the "Tradition" that the RC Denomination "understands" it "has" and the fallible, human, evolving, developing interpretation and application of this "understanding" is correct or Authoritative.

As always, the epistemological principle of norming - especially the Norma Normans (Norm that norms) which is embraced - can't be proven. No shocker - we can't "prove" that God exists or that Jesus ever even lived. There ARE articles of faith in Christianity. But while such cannot be "proven" - it can be evaluated! In epistemology, the NORM (the Rule, Standard, Judge, Rule, Canon, Authority) is to create as much accountability as possible and be as least self-authenticating as possible. One can evaluate for themselves which epistemological principle of Norming is better in those regards.


The point will be made that Sola Scriptura - while it embraces a Standard outside of our and beyond our manipulation - it still must be interpreted. True. That's the issue of hermaneutics and is a different subject. But the same is true of each of the thousands of denomination's own unique understandings of what is "Tradition." Those understandings (however fuzzy that may be) also must be interpreted. In BOTH systems, the Norm must be interpreted - as is the case in every disipline, not just theology.


Scripture AND Tradition.

Actually, as stated, nearly ALL Christians use BOTH Bible and Tradition. Like most Protestants, I hold the collective, historic consensus of God'd people (the church) in high esteem and believe it is ESSENTIAL as a hermaneutical tool (the interpretation of Scripture). I reject the idea that an individual person, congregation or denomination (RCC, Lutheran, Pentecostal, EO, whatever) can interpret and apply Scripture as they will (or claim to be led or claim to have special secret insights). No, we need to look to the language, history and collective wisdom of God's people (who are the church). It's important to study, pray, discuss, wait - even perhaps argue and debate (it can be messy at times!), and then do it again. Sometimes a consensus forms that is so biblical and universal (catholic) that it is no longer questioned or debated at all (this is called "norma normata" - a norm that has been normed) - something akin to what in science we call a "law." Yet, because this is a human interpretation of Scripture - such is not norma normans but still UNDER Scripture in Authority. The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the Canon, several things belong in this category - probably most of Christian theology (witness the unity we share here in the Creed we agreed to in order to post here). But other things are, perhaps, less universal (catholic), less clearly biblical. Some teachings in some denominations clearly have nothing to do with the Bible at all and are held uniquely only by that denomination.

All of this - collectively - is "tradition." It's the historic "hammering out" of things by God's people (the church). Issues arose, problems came - in the life of the church, in morality, in theology - and Christians looked to the Scriptures and then discussed how to interpret and apply that to that situation or question or debate. The Bible is the Authority (the norma normans), the "hammering out" is the tradition - in various degrees of acceptance and embrace, and always subject to the Bible. OUR "hammering out" of what the Bible teaches is not EQUAL and INSEPARABLE to what the Bible teaches - but accountable to it. But OUR collective "hammering out" and the consensus reached interdenominationally, as God's people, is the collective wisdom of God's people - prayerfully guided by God.


Jesus, Scripture and Tradition:

It's interesting to see how JESUS viewed this, how He referred to Scripture and Tradition, to what He directed people. Clearly, Jesus spoke of the SCRIPTURES as such and as Authoritative before the Council of Hippo or the Council or Carthridge - and never once mention the Roman Catholic Denomination. In fact, they quote and refer the the OT BEFORE the Council of Jamnia (90 AD) when the Jews created the OT Canon. Ah, BEFORE these Councils. God doesn't need a Council. The Scriptures are not the product of any Council, they are the product of God - not some institution.


Consider Jesus' testimony about the Scriptures ( before Jamnia or Hippo)
* Does Jesus consider the Scriptures to be such, even without some institutional council declaring so?
* Does Jesus consider the Scriptures Authoritative?
* To WHAT does Jesus direct us?


Matthew 21:42, "...Did you never read in the Scriptures..."
Matthew 22:29, "... Knowing the Scriptures..."
Matthew 22:56, "...the Scriptures of the prophets..."
Mark 12:10, "...have you not read the Scripture that says..."
Mark 12:24, "...you do not know the Scripture that states..."
Mark 14:49, "...but the Scriptures must be fulfilled..."
Mark 15:28, "...the Scripture was fulfilled..."
Luke 4:21, "...This Scriptures is fulfilled..."
Luke 24:27, "...in all the Scriptures..."
Luke 24:32, "...He opened to us all the Scriptures..."
Luke 24:45, "...understand the Scriptures..."
John 2:22, "...they believed the Scriptures..."
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures, for they testify of Me..."
John 7:38, "...He that believes in me, as the Scriptures say..."
John 7:42, "...Has not the Scripture said..."
John 10:35, "...Scripture cannot be broken..."
John 13:18, "...that the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 17:12, "...That the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:24, "...That the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:28, "....That the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:36, "...that the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:37, "...Another Scripture says..."
John 20:9, "...They do not know the Scriptures."
Matt 2:5, "...For it is written..."
Matt 4:4, "...it is written..."
Matt 4:6, "...it is written..."
Matt. 4:7 "... it is written..."
Matt. 4:10, "...It is written..."
Matt. 11:10, "...it is He of whom it is written..."
Matt. 21:13, "...It is written..."
Matt. 26:24, "...as it is written..."
Matt. 26:31, "...For it is written..."
Mark 1:2, "...As it is written..."
Mark 7:6, "...It is written..."
Mark 9:12, "...How it is written..."
Mark 9:13, "...as it is written..."
Mark 11:17, "...Is it not written..."
Mark 14:21, "...as it is written..."
Mark 14:27, "...As it is written..."
Luke 2:23, "...As it is written..."
Luke 3:4, "...As it is written..."
Luke 4:4, "...As it is written..."
Luke 4:8, "...For it is written..."
Luke 4:10, "...For as it is written..."
Luke 4:17, "...the place where it is written..."
Luke 7:27, "...He is he about whom it is written..."
Luke 10:26, "...What is written in the Law..."
Luke 21:22, "....all things which are written..."
Luke 22:37, "...what is written..."
Luke 24:44, "...which were written..."
Luke 24:46, "...Thus it is written..."
John 2:17, "...His disciples remembered that it is written..."
John 6:31, "...as it is written..."
John 6:45, "...It is written..."
John 8:17, "...It is written..."
John 10:34, "...Is it not written..."
John 12:14, "...as it is written..."
John 15:25, "...that is written..."


Compare that to the number of times Jesus mentioned the Pope or the Roman Catholic Denomination. Zero.


Jesus did mention tradition 8 times, almost always negatively.





How I see it...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

MY view...


Yes, there is an epistemological issue here that divides Christianity. The question is: WHAT Authority do we look to judge who/what is correct?

You are a little off here my friend. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand. Holy Scripture is a product of Sacred Tradition. We all have the same New Testament Canon that was the product of Sacred Tradition through the work of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit at the councils of Carthage and Hippo.

All can read the Holy Scriptures, the problem is many misinterpret it's meaning. No one denies that Scripture is Authoritative and inerrant. The problem is that there are 30,000 or 40,000 different interpretations of the Scripture.

Fear not, Jesus didn't throw a book at us and say figure it out, He gave us the means by which we might discern the correct interpretation of the inerrant Scripture. That is the Deposit of Faith in the form of Apostolic Traditions handed from the Apostles themselves.


I hope this clears up your confusion on the matter of how you can determine whether a 180 year old church or the Apostolic Churches which date back to the time of the Apostles are the ones which received the deposit of faith from the Apostles themselves.

As I've mentioned before, if they weren't there back then, they cannot have been the one that was founded then.

Peace be with you.


Your brother in Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Holy Scripture is a product of Sacred Tradition.

I respectfully disagree.

1 Corinthians 2:13, "We speak not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit." Nothing there about the Roman Catholic Denomination or the Council of Carthage or the Council of Hippo.

2 Timothy 3:15, "The Holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Nothing there about the Roman Catholic Denomination or any councils.


And note that Jesus and the Apostles speak of the SCRIPTURES as such and as Authoritative before the Council of Hippo or the Council or Carthridge - and never once mention the Roman Catholic Denomination. In fact, they quote and refer the the OT BEFORE the Council of Jamnia (90 AD) when the Jews created the OT Canon. Ah, BEFORE these Councils. God doesn't need a Council. The Scriptures are not the product of any Council, they are the product of God - not some institution.


Consider Jesus' testimony about the Scriptures ( before Jamnia or Hippo)
* Does Jesus consider the Scriptures to be such, even without some institutional council declaring so?
* Does Jesus consider the Scriptures Authoritative?


Matthew 21:42, "...Did you never read in the Scriptures..."
Matthew 22:29, "... Knowing the Scriptures..."
Matthew 22:56, "...the Scriptures of the prophets..."
Mark 12:10, "...have you not read the Scripture that says..."
Mark 12:24, "...you do not know the Scripture that states..."
Mark 14:49, "...but the Scriptures must be fulfilled..."
Mark 15:28, "...the Scripture was fulfilled..."
Luke 4:21, "...This Scriptures is fulfilled..."
Luke 24:27, "...in all the Scriptures..."
Luke 24:32, "...He opened to us all the Scriptures..."
Luke 24:45, "...understand the Scriptures..."
John 2:22, "...they believed the Scriptures..."
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures, for they testify of Me..."
John 7:38, "...He that believes in me, as the Scriptures say..."
John 7:42, "...Has not the Scripture said..."
John 10:35, "...Scripture cannot be broken..."
John 13:18, "...that the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 17:12, "...That the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:24, "...That the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:28, "....That the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:36, "...that the Scriptures might be fulfilled..."
John 19:37, "...Another Scripture says..."
John 20:9, "...They do not know the Scriptures."
Matt 2:5, "...For it is written..."
Matt 4:4, "...it is written..."
Matt 4:6, "...it is written..."
Matt. 4:7 "... it is written..."
Matt. 4:10, "...It is written..."
Matt. 11:10, "...it is He of whom it is written..."
Matt. 21:13, "...It is written..."
Matt. 26:24, "...as it is written..."
Matt. 26:31, "...For it is written..."
Mark 1:2, "...As it is written..."
Mark 7:6, "...It is written..."
Mark 9:12, "...How it is written..."
Mark 9:13, "...as it is written..."
Mark 11:17, "...Is it not written..."
Mark 14:21, "...as it is written..."
Mark 14:27, "...As it is written..."
Luke 2:23, "...As it is written..."
Luke 3:4, "...As it is written..."
Luke 4:4, "...As it is written..."
Luke 4:8, "...For it is written..."
Luke 4:10, "...For as it is written..."
Luke 4:17, "...the place where it is written..."
Luke 7:27, "...He is he about whom it is written..."
Luke 10:26, "...What is written in the Law..."
Luke 21:22, "....all things which are written..."
Luke 22:37, "...what is written..."
Luke 24:44, "...which were written..."
Luke 24:46, "...Thus it is written..."
John 2:17, "...His disciples remembered that it is written..."
John 6:31, "...as it is written..."
John 6:45, "...It is written..."
John 8:17, "...It is written..."
John 10:34, "...Is it not written..."
John 12:14, "...as it is written..."
John 15:25, "...that is written..."


Compare that to the number of times Jesus mentioned the Pope or the Roman Catholic Denomination. Zero.


Jesus did mention tradition 8 times, almost always negatively.



I'm tempted to list all the references to Scripture and writing by the Apostles, but there are sooooooooooooooooo many that I frankly don't have the time or am allowed all the space that such would require. And I hope the point is clear.



Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Ioann1972]

And note that Jesus and the Apostles speak of the SCRIPTURES as such and as Authoritative long, long, long before the Council of Hippo or the Council or Carthridge - and never once mention the Roman Catholic Denomination. In fact, they quote and refer the the OT BEFORE the Council of Jamnia (90 AD) when the Jews created the OT Canon. Ah, BEFORE these Councils. God doesn't need a Council. The Scriptures are not the product of any Council, they are the product of God.

Have you ever tried finding out when "the Roman Catholic Denomination" was first mentioned? My guess is you won't find any records of someone being "Roman Catholic" before the protestant reformation. Before the split in the western church there was no need to point out the obvious.

I don't see what the councils you mention have to do with scripture being part of Holy Tradition or not. Please explain why you consider them relevant.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No one denies that Scripture is Authoritative and inerrant.

Not only so, but nearly no one denies or even questions what it is, that it exists, that it's First Century, Apostolic and Inspired by God. That's significant to ME.


There are many that deny that "Tradition" (as the RC Denomination understands "it" and fallibly interprets it in evolving and developing ways) is EQUAL to the Bible - is at least as Authoritative and Inerrant. Certainly not equally changless and identifiable. That's significant to ME.



Again, once again, Sola Scriptura does NOT dismiss Tradition - yours, mine, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran or any other understanding of it. Indeed, as I've posted many, many times, Tradition is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL in the process of hermaneutics. And we accept nearly the same Tradition. The difference is that I don't equate OUR interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself, I don't place them on EQUAL footing in terms of NORMING. I place the Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) as the ULTIMATE, FINAL Authority. That's the disagreement, and into that falls the issues we disagree on.

I hope this clears up your confusion on the matter of how you can determine whether a 180 year old church or the Apostolic Churches which date back to the time of the Apostles are the ones which received the deposit of faith from the Apostles themselves.

1. I don't accept the institutionalized version of Christianity or that Christianity is an institution. I beleive the church is people. I beleive only people can love, believe, care, give, serve, minister, baptize, proclaim, obey - I'm really lost on how a legal, political entity can do these things. We disagree on this point, and that's another issue for another day and thread. IF you want to pursue that, there are already several other threads for that.

2. My Catholic congregation was founded only 20 years ago, my Protestant congregation was founded over 30 years ago. But I don't conclude that my Protestant institution has more Authority than my Catholic one. And I don't know if it's even possible to know when the Roman Catholic Denomination became a denomination or institution - or more importantly, why in the world that matters.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Protestante]

My personal is scripture, but if people are looking for mentions of the Catholic before Protestantism, often its spelt Catholick in old English. Just a little note for anybodys personal research on the matter. (just in reply to post 4)

 

[Ioann1972]

I don't accept the institutionalized version of Christianity or that Christianity is an institution. I beleive the church is people. I beleive only people can love, believe, care, give, serve, minister, baptize, proclaim, obey - I'm really lost on how a legal, political entity can do these things. We disagree on this point, and that's another issue for another day and thread. IF you want to pursue that, there are already several other threads for that.

In order to understand what Tradition is, you have to understand what the Church is. There exists no Holy Tradition outside the Church that Christ founded, just as that same Church would not be in existence today if it weren't for Holy Tradition. Tradition is the life of the Church.

If you fail to understand the RC and EO concept of Tradition, it is because you fail to understand what the Church is.

This is not off topic. On the contrary: It is the very heart of the topic.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

OFF TOPIC ALERT!

My personal is scripture, but if people are looking for mentions of the Catholic before Protestantism, often its spelt Catholick in old English. Just a little note for anybodys personal research on the matter. (just in reply to post 4)

MY view...

Certainly, the concept and term "catholic" existed LONG before 1500...

The term literally means "universal" or "whole." The term means "all-inclusive," "all-embracing" "complete." The Creed uses the term, "one holy catholic church." The ancient church meant it as applying to Christian people and the various congregations in which they associated.

It's impossible to know, it seems to me, when the term began to refer to a political, legal entity - a goverment of congregations all under the surpreme Authority of the Roman Pontiff. In time, the concepts of "catholic" came to ALSO refer not to the one holy catholic church - the whole, complete, all-embracing community (oikos) of Christians but to a specific institutional entity - a denomination. The confusion exists to this day. It's just a small part of the institutionalization/politicalization of Christianity and the power struggle with the East.

As the word means, I consider ALL believers to be catholic, all to be a part of the one holy catholic church - not by virtue of their legal association with a political institution but by virtue of their faith in Christ and relationship with Him.


But let's take that issue to a thread about the nature of the church.
This thread is about NORMING of teachings and claims.


Thank you.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Benedicta00]

In order to understand what Tradition is, you have to understand what the Church is. There exists no Holy Tradition outside the Church that Christ founded, just as that same Church would not be in existence today if it weren't for Holy Tradition. Tradition is the life of the Church.

If you fail to understand the RC and EO concept of Tradition, it is because you fail to understand what the Church is.

This is not off topic. On the contrary: It is the very heart of the topic.

We have been telling him this for days- he stays in denile.

It's a question no better than “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”

It’s easy in it’s break down, Jesus taught the 12 orally, they in turn taught the first generation of Christians orally and God inspired certain men to write down certain parts of the oral word that was being passed down.

 

[Maximus]

There are many reasons why Sola Scriptura is an impossible doctrine that results in nothing but chaos.

One of the chief reasons that comes to mind is the fact that there are almost as many interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of it. Christians read the Bible and come to different conclusions about what it means, and those differences are not always merely trivial. They are often significant.

How can one tell who's got the right take on the Bible?

This or that exegetical or hermeneutical technique is touted as the solution, but none of them yields a unified interpretation.

It seems the Bible just isn't enough by itself.

Besides, it's never really used by itself or as the real norm, despite claims to the contrary.

No one reads the Bible in a vacuum. Everyone interprets the Bible within some tradition; i.e., someone somewhere, somehow, tells him how the Bible is to be understood. Whether he picks this tradition up through books or by word-of-mouth, it is still a tradition.

Once that tradition - whatever it may be - is learned from authorities we trust and is accepted, we press the Bible into its service.

That is another problem with the claim that the Bible is the ultimate norm for the individual Christian: it never really is.

The Bible is a book. Books don't talk and they don't explain themselves. They aren't living teachers. The living teachers we accept - whoever they may be - shape our understanding of the Bible. And those living teachers stand in some line of teachers who came before them, whether Protestant or orthodox Catholic or whatever.

One must begin with the Lord and His Apostles and move through history, striving to see how the first Christians really understood their faith and how they passed that on to succeeding generations.

Jesus wrote no books. Instead He founded a living Church to pass the faith on intact. It was that Church, the original, one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, that passed down by word-of-mouth from one generation to the next which of the multitude of books claiming divine authority were actually inspired by God. It was that Church that, through her tradition, determined the canon of the Bible.

Without that tradition, no Bible.

That's how God did it, whether we like it or not.

Without the Bible, we would still have the Christian faith that has been handed down through the millenia.

But without that word-of-mouth, generation-to-generation teaching - that tradition - there would be no Bible.

"But God could have done it some other way!" you say.

Maybe.

But He didn't.

St. Paul said the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). He didn't say that of the Bible. (He couldn't, of course: there was no Bible when he wrote those words.)

Dont' expect the Apostolic Tradition to be a written "corpus," an Encyclopedia Christiana that one can easily purchase and use to measure the local Bishop.

Oh, there are plenty of writings, all right. There's the Bible; that's part of it. There are the things the Fathers all agreed upon; that's another. There are the ancient liturgies, prayers, songs, and works of art. And there are the decrees of the great councils of the Church.

But those things alone, as inspiring and inspired and useful as they are, won't do anyone much good apart from the Church, the living teacher and interpreter of the truth, the Body of Christ, ensouled and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, we all must be convinced of the truth as individuals, and that requires Bible study and prayer and learning of the faith from those who have passed it on intact from the 1st century.

If we allow ourselves to become convinced by a teaching that only began in the 16th century or later, however, and then begin, perhaps unconsciously, to press our understanding of the Bible into its service, we miss all the riches of the truth that Christ has for us through His Church.

If you don't know which Church is the original, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, then go back to the beginning and search for her.

Pray for the grace to find her.

But be aware that you are probably going to need more than just the Bible to get there.

Anyway, if you think you are depending only upon the Bible now, you're kidding yourself.

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There are many reasons why Sola Scriptura is an impossible doctrine that results in nothing but chaos.

There are many reasons why "Our Tradition" is an impossible epistemological system of norming, because it results in nothing but division, elitism, and chaos. Just put a Catholic and a Mormon into a room - and watch the feathers fly! BOTH claiming exactly the same things and both using their OWN "tradition" to "prove" they are correct.

If what I say is the Norm for what I say, then I'm going to be correct - every time. It not only insures zero accountability, but lots of pride, egoism and elistism since I KNOW I'm right 100% of the time and can't be otherwise.


Being accountable, having to support what I say is something other than what I see keeps me humble, honest and learning.

One of the chief reasons that comes to mind is the fact that there are almost as many interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of it.

I've heard MANY Catholic sermons.
I've participated in MANY Catholic Bible studies.
I've participated in MANY Catholic youth events.
I KNOW - Catholics interpret the Bible JUST AS MUCH as any protestant does.

And if you put 5 people from my Protestant church in a room, and mentioned some controversy, you'd get a range of opinions. If you put 5 people from my Catholic church in a room and mentioned the same controversy, you'd get pretty much the same range of opinion (as long as a priest or nun isn't among them). Yup. Seen it lots of times.

And Catholics not ONLY have the Bible to interpret (something we at least can see and study), but ALSO all that "Tradition" that we can't identify or see or study (hard to know if someone's "interpreting" it right when we don't know what "it" is). It's the SAME problem - squared.

How can one tell who's got the right take on the Bible?

The heart of the issue. This drives Catholics nuts.
They'd rather believe WHATEVER the priest says cuz he's just right cuz he is.
Some Catholics realize this circular authenticating, some don't.
But I agree, it's a whole lot easier.



There is MUCH in your post I want to respond to because it's EXCELLENT and very, very insightful. And I think that while you are clearly and obviously coming form the RC persective (and I have NO desire to change that), I think you have some very valid points.

But I must run. Sadly, great posts QUICKLY get buried in lost back pages - often in minutes here at CF (it's so frustrating), but hopefully I'll find it next time I sign on here and can finish. You have some EXCELLENT insights here.


to be finished later...

.

 

[TreesNTrees]

One aspect that may be worth thinking about this is that within the bible, it's rare to find a significant group of God's people adhering to His Word into a 3rd or 4th generation.

At some points in the scriptural time-table, there were "remnants" like a faithful remnant.

In many cases - easy to find in scripture - we see a prophet taking a stand on the Word while he is rediculed by a large majority.

In biblical history, where do you ever see a significant majority being quite right in God's eyes for very long at all.

Look at all the passages where the man of God is saying basically "get back on the ball" - "you are not doing the Word".

 

[hoser]

You are a little off here my friend. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand. Holy Scripture is a product of Sacred Tradition. We all have the same New Testament Canon that was the product of Sacred Tradition through the work of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit at the councils of Carthage and Hippo.

All can read the Holy Scriptures, the problem is many misinterpret it's meaning. No one denies that Scripture is Authoritative and inerrant. The problem is that there are 30,000 or 40,000 different interpretations of the Scripture.

Fear not, Jesus didn't throw a book at us and say figure it out, He gave us the means by which we might discern the correct interpretation of the inerrant Scripture. That is the Deposit of Faith in the form of Apostolic Traditions handed from the Apostles themselves.


I hope this clears up your confusion on the matter of how you can determine whether a 180 year old church or the Apostolic Churches which date back to the time of the Apostles are the ones which received the deposit of faith from the Apostles themselves.

As I've mentioned before, if they weren't there back then, they cannot have been the one that was founded then.

Peace be with you.


Your brother in Christ.

You are correct. Scripture is a product of Tradition. Scripture would not exist without Tradition. Holy Scripture flows through Holy Tradition. This unfortuneately is one of those common sense type of things that isn't grasped very easily.

 

[Maximus]

Mormonism began in the 19th century and, while it is not a Protestant Church (it's not even Christian), it came out of the Evangelical Protestant milieu and owes much of its language and method of operation to it.

There is no equivalence between the Catholic Church and the LDS.

Besides, acting as if Catholics and Mormons believe in tradition and Evangelicals do not is either 1) not very honest or 2) not very perceptive or 3) both. Besides, equating Catholics and Mormons is a pretty obvious attempt at guilt by association: "See, Catholics are just like those awful Mormons!"

Evangelicals have their own traditions, which have been passed down and embellished and developed since the Reformation of the 16th century. Their understanding of the Bible is the product of that tradition. People who read the Bible and understand it in one of the multitude of Evangelical ways are helped to that understanding via the teachings and guidance they receive from other Evangelicals, whether through the printed word or by word-of-mouth.

Don't kid yourself. That's tradition.

The Apostolic Tradition is NOT the combined private opinions of all the world's Catholics, which is what I seem to be getting from CaliforniaJosiah's posts.

A private individual can be wrong about it.

No one who uses the Bible as his or her "norm" can ever really be wrong about the Bible, however.

After all, if the Bible is his or her "norm," who, this side of the Judgment Day, is to say he or she is wrong?

If you believe certain things about the Christian faith and you find that the Church Fathers disagreed with you, you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong, that the Fathers knew more than you do.

Ultimately, the fact that the very biblical canon itself depends for existence on something outside of Scripture gives the lie to Sola Scriptura.

To what norm did the Church Fathers have recourse when they passed judgment on the various books with a claim to divine inspiration?

It could not have been the Bible itself because 1)there was no single-volume Bible at that time, and 2) nowhere in any of the books of the Bible is there a list of inspired books.

So what was the norm then?

Where does the Bible say that norm was supposed to change?

 

[sempervirens]

As St. Paul said it all comes down to this:
" if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

I think even those that rely on scripture alone can point to an event or a person in their lives that influenced them to embrace christianity - we don't usually see folks simply pick up the bible and affirm the gospel - it needs to be preached and faith nurtured. The apostolic churches hold that they learned their faith at the foot of the apostles, and that they preserve, written in their hearts, the faith conveyed to them by those who encountered the risen Christ personally. Personally I draw much strength in my faith knowing how forcefully the gospel spread, and the willingness of the martyrs to die to preserve the truth proclaimed. I think that is why at times catholics take the questioning of the apostolicity so hard is because for us, this deposit of faith, which we hold to be the memory of the encounter with the apostles as preserved in the traditions, liturgy, sacraments and teachings of the church, is an key part of what we base our faith in the risen Christ on. By attacking the church which we hold preserves that foundation, to us it feels like an attack on our faith in Christ at the same time.

 

[jckstraw72]

There are many reasons why "Our Tradition" is an impossible epistemological system of norming, because it results in nothing but division, elitism, and chaos. Just put a Catholic and a Mormon into a room - and watch the feathers fly! BOTH claiming exactly the same things and both using their OWN "tradition" to "prove" they are correct.

except they are claiming different beliefs and traditions, so of course they wont agree. but within Catholicism there is unity, as within Orthodoxy, and Im assuming within Mormonism as well. I dont think that can be said for any other Church.

 

[lionroar0]

except they are claiming different beliefs and traditions, so of course they wont agree. but within Catholicism there is unity, as within Orthodoxy, and Im assuming within Mormonism as well. I dont think that can be said for any other Church.

Adnd I think that you just hit the nail on the head. The definition of tradition that the author of the OP is going for is a generic all ecompassing definition. That throws all tradition under one umbrella. What he does not realize is that this is a very poor argument. As other christian denominations have their own tradition.
Here are some examples of the different traditions with in protestanism.

Laying of hands. Speaking in tongues. Worshipping in the Spirit. Symbolic communion. Using grape fruit for communion. OSAS. Altar calls. Tent revivals. How should baptism take place? Using the trinitarian formula ot just baptising in the name of Jesus. IS baptism by immersion valid. Baptism by pouring water over peoples heads. How many times a person is immersed. How many times a person pours waters over some elses head. Having daily worship. Only worship on sundays.

According to Sola Scriptura this is all biblical and normal.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

except they are claiming different beliefs and traditions, so of course they wont agree. but within Catholicism there is unity, as within Orthodoxy, and Im assuming within Mormonism as well. I dont think that can be said for any other Church.

1. Many denominations have doctrinal unity greater than that of the RCC. I'd point to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod for one. But what that has to do with the OP is beyond me. The RCC and LDS have a lot of unity because 1) they enforce it in ways rarely seen in Protestant groups who are less bold in their self-claims, 2) they both utilize a totally circular, self-authenticating system of norming that insures they are correct since such a conclusion is the only possible one. With the norming process they both embrace, it's impossible for either to be wrong about anything.


2. Yes, the Infallible Apostolic Tradition that the LDS embraces is very different than the Infallible Apostolic Tradition that the RCC embraces. But since only the LDS actually wrote it down and published it - almost immediately, we can know what theirs actually is, we can compare their interpretation and application of Tradition with what they self-claim is that Tradition. With the RCC, not even they know exactly what "it" is (for some mysterious reason, they still have to write it down). What I've only recently realized is that, for the RCC unlike the LDS, there is and never has been any such corpus - written or not. It is, for Catholics, an ongoing, fallible, evolving, developing "understanding" of what "it" is and what "it" means. And the EO (who must have the SAME "Traditon" from the Apostles) have a different ongoing, fallible, evolving, developing "understanding" of what "it" is and what "it" means. It's hard to know because we Protestants aren't told what "it" is. Only a 2,000 year history of how a particular institution has spun it - often in what could be seen as amazingly self-serving ways. I'm not saying it is so or it is wrong or it is right. It's pretty hard to determine. And I realize that the RCC uses this "Tradition" (?) as the Norm for the self-same Tradition, a perfect circular process, so they are certain they are 100% correct. I do understand that.


MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[lionroar0]

My personal is scripture, but if people are looking for mentions of the Catholic before Protestantism, often its spelt Catholick in old English. Just a little note for anybodys personal research on the matter. (just in reply to post 4)

Actuallythe word catholic was first appeared in 1st century letters of Ignatious.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

1. Many denominations have doctrinal unity greater than that of the RCC. I'd point to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod for one. But what that has to do with the OP is beyond me. The RCC and LDS have a lot of unity because 1) they enforce it in ways rarely seen in Protestant groups who are less bold in their self-claims, 2) they both utilize a totally circular, self-authenticating system of norming that insures they are correct since such a conclusion is the only possible one. With the norming process they both embrace, it's impossible for either to be wrong about anything.

This is a false conmparison. The only conclusion since no objective evidence has been provided to back up this assertion is that of academic dishonesty. Specillay after being asked to provide the data for this assertion.

2. Yes, the Infallible Apostolic Tradition that the LDS embraces is very different than the Infallible Apostolic Tradition that the RCC embraces. But since only the LDS actually wrote it down and published it - almost immediately, we can know what theirs actually is, we can compare their interpretation and application of Tradition with what they self-claim is that Tradition. With the RCC, not even they know exactly what "it" is (for some mysterious reason, they still have to write it down). What I've only recently realized is that, for the RCC unlike the LDS, there is and never has been any such corpus - written or not. It is, for Catholics, an ongoing, fallible, evolving, developing "understanding" of what "it" is and what "it" means. And the EO (who must have the SAME "Traditon" from the Apostles) have a different ongoing, fallible, evolving, developing "understanding" of what "it" is and what "it" means. It's hard to know because we Protestants aren't told what "it" is. Only a 2,000 year history of how a particular institution has spun it - often in what could be seen as amazingly self-serving ways. I'm not saying it is so or it is wrong or it is right. It's pretty hard to determine. And I realize that the RCC uses this "Tradition" (?) as the Norm for the self-same Tradition, a perfect circular process, so they are certain they are 100% correct. I do understand that.

A false comparison will lead to false conclusions. Specially with out any data other then opinion. Any one can have an opinion. Whether it is right or wrong that requires objective evedience which has not been provided.

Peace