Can you give me a list of those non written down traditions and what year they were finally put you pen?God's the author of Tradition too. And Tradition is carried down by the Church, whose members also wrote NT Scripture which she likewise carried down-and later assembled into canon.
Still getting that one wrong are you?Sure. In the same way that your understanding is actually Sola releghunter.
There isn't much of Scripture that she's officially interpreted as far as I know-there's no need. So in her catechetical teachings or concilliar decrees, for examples, she uses Scripture among other sources to support her positions, just as anyone else does. Additionally, her Traditional position on the Real Presence, as an example, interprets John chap 6 by virtue of that understanding. Both in the east and west, the RP has always and everywhere been the belief since time immemorial, as they say.I guess you have the answer.
How much of Sacred Scriptures has the magisterium actually infallibly interpreted?
Not at all. A human vessel or vessels are necessarily, unavoidably, required in order to apply the rule. And they just plain don't all end up with the same results.Still getting that one wrong are you?
No need. Interesting. I keep hearing Scripture is too difficult to understand.There isn't much of Scripture that she's officially interpreted as far as I know-there's no need.
You just told me not much of Scriptures has to be explained.Not at all. A human vessel or vessels are necessarily, unavoidably, required in order to apply the rule. And they just plain don't all end up with the same results.
So if we were to get honest with ourselves about this we'd all say that such and such is/are the sources of my revelation and I infallibly interpret them to mean this or that such that any conflicting interpretation is wrong. With that acknowledgment and admission, we might finally be able to begin to take a hard look at just who might have the best claim to having the right to do the interpreting.
Maybe for 10,000 Iraqi DinarThat would take some time. I will be happy to do it for you for a fee of $10,000, paid in advance.
No need. Interesting. I keep hearing Scripture is too difficult to understand.
No, people ask for some verse by verse official compilation of interpretations for some reason. And the Church doesn't have that while there are plenty of instances where Scripture is referenced in support of her positions. So interpretations are evident where we find particular teachings being discussed.You just told me not much of Scriptures has to be explained.
Here you go again. Know I posted this a few times.
Understanding Sola Scriptura
Then it's up to you to explain to us where it is to be found by us disciples.No, there is no basis to believe that everything our Lord taught is contained in Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture itself does not make this claim.
Obviously, they are not. But no one has said that they are.No, God and Sacred Scripture are not the same.
You mean the traditions that we find mentioned in the material you say is not adequate??They are contained within the traditions referred to at 2 Thess. 2:15, for example.
According to your own standards, it would have to be a source or authority about which there was no disagreement, no diversity of interpretations, no division of opinion about what it was revealing. As I have shown before, that cannot be Sacred Tradition...and it cannot be the "authority" of any particular church or church leaders.
Because, as I just told you (above) and have told you many times before, you have said Sola Scriptura cannot be the guide since the churches which claim to follow it are in disagreement about the meaning of parts of it (Scripture), but THIS ALSO IS THE CASE WITH YOUR REPLACEMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA.Why not?
That is a good point. And I will always answer "What does the Bible teach?"So, again, no one disagrees about Scripture being right, only about whether or not those applying it to some particular belief or teaching are right in their understanding to begin with. So, as an example, I can ask you whether or not Scripture, as the rule of faith, affirms or denies the requirement for Baptism for regeneration. And then you, as others have done before you, can freely pontificate on the subject to your hearts content, confident that you have God's exclusive take on the matter.
I have not said anything about adequacy in this thread. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.You mean the traditions that we find mentioned in the material you say is not adequate??
I gave one example above.And, by the way, what ARE those traditions?
You should believe what is written in the Nicene Creed. You should be baptized, follow the commandments to the best of your ability, and repent when you sin. Beyond that you may do whatever you please.Tell us what we should believe or do.
I gave you one example above. Here is another example, which you may believe being an Anglican. When our blessed Lord Jesus said "This is my body" he was not merely speaking symbolically.Which traditions are these?
That's a good question. I think you would agree that some are more important than others. For example, you would probably agree that our tradition that the book of James is the inspired word of God, is more important than the particular day on which our Lord's birthday is celebrated (December 25, or other dates in some churches).Are they doctrinal or merely wholesome customs? Are they things that were routine with the early Christians--and perhaps us as well? What exactly are the traditions we must hold onto according to your line of thought?
I think you make a good point here. Tradition and even an "infallible statement" by a pope or another church leader would still suffer the same fate as Sacred Scripture. Someone has to interpret what is valid tradition, and one would also need to interpret the meaning and significance of infalliable statements. You can go to Catholic websites and find Catholics debating about these topics in just the same manner that Protestants debate Sacred Scripture. So I do not think it is a valid argument to say that Sacred Scripture alone cannot be a valid (or the sole) rule of faith merely because there are diverging interpretations of it.Because, as I just told you (above) and have told you many times before, you have said Sola Scriptura cannot be the guide since the churches which claim to follow it are in disagreement about the meaning of parts of it (Scripture), but THIS ALSO IS THE CASE WITH YOUR REPLACEMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA.
You've laid out your reason for dismissing Sola Scriptura but then you advocate for an alternative that fails equally to meet your standard.
Okay. So we seem to be in agreement that the often heard argument that the problem with Sola Scriptura is that everybody is on his own to interpret the meaning...is a false charge. Just as is the case with churches that are NOT Sola Scriptura, whatever is the authority, it has to be interpreted AND IS interpreted for the people.I think you make a good point here. Tradition and even an "infallible statement" by a pope or another church leader would still suffer the same fate as Sacred Scripture.
Then this is NOT a difference between the churches. That's what I have explained many times to opponents of Sola Scriptura.Someone has to interpret what is valid tradition, and one would also need to interpret the meaning and significance of infalliable statements. You can go to Catholic websites and find Catholics debating about these topics in just the same manner that Protestants debate Sacred Scripture.
Wonderful!So I do not think it is a valid argument to say that Sacred Scripture alone cannot be a valid (or the sole) rule of faith merely because there are diverging interpretations of it.
Absolutely.Personally I think that Sacred Scripture is adequate at least insofar as the essentials of the faith. If a person had a copy of the New Testament and no other resources I think it would be sufficient for him to get saved.
Well, then, what are the other ones and how do we know them to be infallible?But while I think that Sacred Scripture is adequate for that purpose, I don't think it logically concludes that it is the only infalliable authority.
So long as we know what it was. By and large we do not. We know that there was oral transmission, but not most of what was transmitted. But to the extent that there are records of what Church Fathers said, we have something to go on. The problem is that there is no reason to say that whatever they said or wrote is in step with the "oral transmission" from the Apostles. Indeed, most of the time, with most of the doctrinal issues, the Early Church Fathers are in disagreement with each other, proving that we cannot determine what of it, if any of it, can be considered the final and accurate word.Oral tradition passed down by word of mouth, is also adequate.
Of course, but how does that shed any light on what we have been discussing?People were getting saved before the first book of the New Testament was ever written, and for hundreds of years before the printing press and widespread literacy.
In principle, no. So just present them to us and we'll take a look.I don't think you would disagree that things that our blessed Lord and the apostles communicated, but which are not recorded in Sacred Scripture, are valid rules that Christians should follow.
Yes our Lord is obviously the Infallible Authority. Now where do we find His teachings, commands and exhortations? Answer: Holy Scriptures.None of this subsequent line of inquiry that you and @redleghunter have engaged in changes the fact that the assertion that "The Scriptures are the only infallible authority" is "easily proven false because our Lord Jesus is also an infalliable authority".
See above as what you claim is a false premise.Do either of you have any substantive refutation of this point?
It is the claim of the Roman Catholic church that her magisterium is the ultimate ruling on what is infallible. Apparently this is based on Tradition and Sacred Scriptures. It is the Sacred Scriptures "plus" agencies of men. Don't get me wrong. Jesus left us with the apostles to establish His Church. And humans minister within His Church. Those human beings are fallible. The Holy Scriptures are infallible as we have the words, commands and teachings of God present. What other than is from God to be used to test traditions and truth claims? You say the magisterium made up of fallible men. Would not we test what these men think is infallible with the only infallible source, which is God's revelation to mankind the Holy Scriptures?It seems that both of you hope to refute it by engaging in the line of inquiry that both of you have done of the past few pages of this thread, but I am not particularly interested in subjecting myself to a long inquisition.
Is it not interesting that after the apostles died and went to Glory with our Lord that those who followed them preserved the Sacred Scriptures but somehow never got around to writing down the alleged traditions you claim. That is why when asked, a Catholic cannot produce even some major doctrines that were handed down by mouth instead of by written means. Only the Gnostics claimed secret knowledge on their leaders knew about and only passed down to small groups.I don't think you would disagree that things that our blessed Lord and the apostles communicated, but which are not recorded in Sacred Scripture, are valid rules that Christians should follow. Both you and @redleghunter seem to doubt that they could or have been effectively transmitted by means other than writing. I think that is why you ask questions like "Please provide a list of the traditions and so forth."