Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Albion]

... a belief you can only have because Sacred Tradition identifies those writings as Sacred Scripture.

That's a frequently-used retort, but it doesn't make sense. Really.

What you are saying is that if tradition defined Scripture, we must consider tradition the equal OF Scripture. That's like saying Dr. Jonas Salk found the cure for polio, so Salk or his laboratory must be the cure for polio, not the medicine he came up with.

The Church didn't invent the Bible books anyway. They were already considered to be God's inspired word by the churches of that time, and the Church put its seal of approval on them, that's all.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No, even your Catechism disagrees with your assumption. She believes that Scripture and Tradition are two separate transmissions of God's revelation.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

I know it's popular around here for some to assert Tradition gave us Scripture, but that's false. Again, even RC leadership disagrees with that.

They no such thing. That section of the CCC says Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition must be treated equally by the believer. Nice try though.

 

[Albion]

duplicate

 

[Albion]

Being "treated equally" does not mean that they are the same or that one is a part of the other.

It may be that your position on this owes to nothing more than a misreading of the Catechism.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Being "treated equally" does not mean that they are the same or that one is a part of the other.

You know better than that. That section of the CCC says nothing about the origin of Scripture or indeed how the Church came to recognize it as Scripture.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It may also be that you're not reading it carefully enough.

 

[Albion]

You know better than that.

No, I actually do know that to be treated equally does not mean that the items are the same. That's just what the wording means.

That section of the CCC says nothing about the origin of Scripture or indeed how the Church came to recognize it as Scripture.

Here's what it says again:

82

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Standing Up is correct. That line does not say that the two ARE the same, but rather, that they are to be TREATED WITH equal devotion and reverence.

 

[thecolorsblend]

...

Okay, I'm not sure if this is a reading comprehension issue or what. But I said the Church identified Scripture. It did. Period, end of discussion. That section of the CCC says absolutely jacknothing that refutes my point. In fact, a less charitable person might say it has absolutely positively nothing whatsoever in any shape, form or fashion to do with what I wrote. Nothing. Not even remotely close. I daresay that the principle expressed in that section of the CCC is totally irrelevant to my point.

No offense but if this is the state of argumentation and rhetoric, I weep for the future.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thats not what the OP said so there is the division and as the OP argued any signs of division means bad fruit and therefore wrong. Wonder if the OP really thought that through very well that another catholic would say the opposite.

Well, the division is, mostly, Protestant from Catholic, and the bad fruit, we would say, is the Protestant debarkation from Sacred Tradition.

Well perhaps they may not have changed doctrine according to their definition of doctrine. I tend to look at their practices that continued for hundreds & hundreds of years with no word from anyone in the church that it was not right and say that was their doctrine. By that method they have indeed changed their doctrine. By the catholic definition maybe not but it does mean they have major flaws in their system and don't seem to have any interest in fixing those flaws. Fancy calling people demon possessed when they need medical treatment.

Practices are completely different from doctrine, as I've been pointing out. Practices is how people employ their faith, and as long as their faith is from their heart, mostly, it's benign. Practices can change, and often do, as we can see from the old Friday ban on eating meat. Practices cannot change doctrine in any way. If they go into heresy, then the Church will stop it once it's found. Even today, though, there are Protestant sects that would call someone demon possessed when they are mentally ill, so don't know where this is going.

According to this and comments by the OP there is no need for tradition anymore.

So why not do away with the ceremony most people go through to get married???

 

[Albion]

...

Okay, I'm not sure if this is a reading comprehension issue or what. But I said the Church identified Scripture. It did.

Let's say that we all agree to that point. The so-called "undivided church" of the era before the many divisions we know today got started did indeed determine, officially, which books ought to be considered inspired.

THAT, however, doesn't answer the question we were discussing--are traditions to be treated as the equal of Scripture when it comes to defining doctrine? This is a different issue altogether.

CCC says absolutely jacknothing that refutes my point.

Oh yes it does. You either don't understand that or don't want to. Both SU and I having explained it to you in point-blank terms without effect, however, and you being unwilling to respond except to stamp your feet, doesn't leave us with much more opportunity for dialog, though. I agree with you on that.

.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Being "treated equally" does not mean that they are the same or that one is a part of the other.

It may be that your position on this owes to nothing more than a misreading of the Catechism.

We don't believe they're the same, though. Again, your misreading of what Catholics are taught...

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, I actually do know that to be treated equally does not mean that the items are the same. That's just what the wording means.



Here's what it says again:



Standing Up is correct. That line does not say that the two ARE the same, but rather, that they are to be TREATED WITH equal devotion and reverence.

That's exactly how we treat them. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Let's say that we all agree to that point.

Excellent. Thank you for playing!

 

[Albion]

OK.

Does that mean that you're now preparing to turn to the question of the OP--whether or not the Bible can be trusted to be adequate for our instruction?

 

[Standing Up]

...

But I said the Church identified Scripture.

We understand you believe your denomination identified its Scripture. Other denominations like EO or P identified its Scripture. They are now identical in the NT (27 books) and overlap identically in the OT (39 books).

The point, however, was to recognize that some denominations (EO, RC) distinguish between two sources of God's revelation. Scripture and Tradition. You believe they flow from the same source, but the two are different and unique. Others define only Scripture as God's revelation.

Got it? This is not to say anything about who or whether Scripture or Tradition is interpreted accurately. You should know this because of your Magisterium.

 

[Standing Up]

We don't believe they're the same, though. Again, your misreading of what Catholics are taught...

Exactly. Scripture and Tradition are not the same, though you would believe they flow from the same source. Some of us disagree because it is impossible to prove Tradition's conclusions.

 

[thecolorsblend]

You believe they flow from the same source, but the two are different and unique.

No they're not.

 

[Albion]

No they're not.

Why not? The Bible teaches that Jesus is God so we believe it, but the Assumption of Mary is nowhere hinted at in Scripture, yet it's been made a dogma. Where did that come from? Answer: Tradition (or a claim of it).

The two CANNOT be the same.

 

[Root of Jesse]

OK.

Does that mean that you're now preparing to turn to the question of the OP--whether or not the Bible can be trusted to be adequate for our instruction?

We do trust the Bible, Albion. We trust more than the Bible. The question was never "can the Bible be trusted". But there you go again...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Exactly. Scripture and Tradition are not the same, though you would believe they flow from the same source. Some of us disagree because it is impossible to prove Tradition's conclusions.

They do flow from the same source-the word of God. You disagree because of your interpretation, and lack of some of Scripture, because it's inconvenient to your doctrine.