Sola Scriptura vs. Catholic Tradition

rojoloco · Jan 22, 2009

On my other forum we started discussing tradition. A Catholic member said Catholics view Sacred Tradition as being equal to Scripture. I fully believe this to be a lie. I am a supporter of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). I believe Scripture to be the final source of authority. Below is part of what I posted in the other thread mixed with some new stuff.

As for the Word being the final source of authority, it does not say this specifically in the Bible. This does not mean it isn't so. We have to look at examples in the Bible.

Matthew 4:1-11 said:
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU';
and
'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'"
Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'" Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'" Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

What was it that Jesus used to overcome Satan himself? Did he use the traditions of the Church? Not at all! He used straight up Scripture. Scripture was the final source of authority for Jesus when he was battling Satan. If it was the final source for Jesus, why is it not the final source for us. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3, Deuteronomy 6:16, Deuteronomy 6:13, and Deuteronomy 10:20.

There are also plenty of places where the Bible teaches that Scripture is enough.

Matthew 21:42a said:
Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,...

John 2:22 said:
So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 said:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1 Peter 2:2 said:
like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

2 Peter 1:19 said:
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

Acts 17:11 said:
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

2 Timothy 3:16 said:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Bible does not tell us to turn to tradition. It tells us to turn to Scripture. It not only tells us to turn to Scripture but gives many examples of it being lived out and practiced. It tells us Scripture will make us adequate and will equip us for every good work.

Catholics say Sola Scriptura is dangerous because it is a doctrine not found in the Bible. The only thing I have to say to that is the Trinity, 2 natures of Jesus, & the rapture are topics not found in the Bible either. They are all doctrines extracted from the Bible as a whole. Catholics accept the Trinity as a sound doctrine even though it does nto specifically say it in Scripture. It does show it to be true if you look at it as a whole but it does not speak on that doctrine by itself. If that can be accepted as Truth, why is Sola Scriptura so difficult to accept? Scripture points to it just as much, if not more, than the Trinity, rapture, or 2 natures of Jesus.

When something is not specifically taught in Scripture, Catholicism teaches that Church authority is what they are to follow. It is placed on equal grounds with Scripture. If the Bible said to not practice tradition, would the Catholic Church do it anyway? Of course not! They would listen to what the Bible said. Now that we have established this, we can see that the Bible supercedes any sort of tradition. Catholics believe all practiced tradition is approved by the Bible. They believe it is biblical. Notice the Bible is acting as the final source of authority here? They are not placing tradition above the Bible when being compared to the Bible. In a direct comparison, Catholicism teaches the Bible is superior. How then can it be equal when not being directly compared? Nowhere in the Bible does it claim Sacred Tradition is inspired by God or from God. The only thing to make a claim like that is Scripture itself. Catholics claim Sacred Tradition to be equal but we can see, by the examples listed above, it certainly is not. So many religions claim to have some sort of exclusive revelation from God. Mormons claim the Book of Mormon to be high authority than the Bible. JW's claim they are the only true Christians and everyone else is deceived (Mormons claim this too BTW). Catholics teach their traditions are on equal par to the Scriptures. Christianity (and the Bible itself) teaches that only the Word of God is to act as the final authority on these matters. Even when Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit, it does not say the Spirit will give extra truth. It says the Spirit will help us understand the Scriptures.

Not all Sacred Tradition is bad. The Trinity is dead on. It is when these traditions stray from the Bible and rely on Church teachings (not Bible teachings) that problems arise. The Church does not have the authority to make calls unless they are based on Scripture. This alone makes the Church lesser than Scripture.

Hebres 7:7b said:
the lesser is blessed by the greater.

As long as Sacred Tradition is Biblical founded, it is wrong. As long as the Bible fully supports it, it will be blessed. Tradition is less than Scripture either way. If the Church claims they are receiving Truth from God which is not found in the Bible, they are placing the Church not only equal to Scripture, but above it. This too is wrong.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 said:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Tradition is good when it coincides with Scripture & the teachings of the apostles (which is found in Scripture oddly enough

)

Matthew 15:3 said:
3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

If Tradition is not found in the Bible, it is not to be followed. We are not to turn to Church authority as an approval. Jesus very plainly told us to not follow tradition that transgresses the commandments of God. Church authority plays no role here. Again, this supports Sola Scriptura.

1 Corinthians 4:6 said:
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

What is written is what we are to follow. It is not to be "advanced" into the wisdom of the Church through tradition when it goes against the wisdom of the Word.

1 Corinthians 1:19 said:
For it is written,
"I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

Remember that in the end, ALL tradition is subject to Scripture's approval. It is not equal by any means.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 22, 2009

Remember that in the end, ALL tradition is subject to Scripture's approval. It is not equal by any means.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

Greetings and welcome to CF! I am SOLO SCRIPTURA myself

Rhamiel · Jan 22, 2009

well the Bible did not come with a list of "these books should be in here"
so you recognize that God used a men to proclaim absolute truth that is not found in the Bible after the books of the Bible were written

Rhamiel · Jan 22, 2009

oh welcome to Christian Forum and GT
you really seemed to hit the floor running so to speak

CaliforniaJosiah · Jan 22, 2009

rojoloco said:
On my other forum we started discussing tradition. A Catholic member said Catholics view Sacred Tradition as being equal to Scripture. I fully believe this to be a lie. I am a supporter of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). I believe Scripture to be the final source of authority. Below is part of what I posted in the other thread mixed with some new stuff.

As for the Word being the final source of authority, it does not say this specifically in the Bible. This does not mean it isn't so. We have to look at examples in the Bible.

What was it that Jesus used to overcome Satan himself? Did he use the traditions of the Church? Not at all! He used straight up Scripture. Scripture was the final source of authority for Jesus when he was battling Satan. If it was the final source for Jesus, why is it not the final source for us. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3, Deuteronomy 6:16, Deuteronomy 6:13, and Deuteronomy 10:20.

There are also plenty of places where the Bible teaches that Scripture is enough.

The Bible does not tell us to turn to tradition. It tells us to turn to Scripture. It not only tells us to turn to Scripture but gives many examples of it being lived out and practiced. It tells us Scripture will make us adequate and will equip us for every good work.

Catholics say Sola Scriptura is dangerous because it is a doctrine not found in the Bible. The only thing I have to say to that is the Trinity, 2 natures of Jesus, & the rapture are topics not found in the Bible either. They are all doctrines extracted from the Bible as a whole. Catholics accept the Trinity as a sound doctrine even though it does nto specifically say it in Scripture. It does show it to be true if you look at it as a whole but it does not speak on that doctrine by itself. If that can be accepted as Truth, why is Sola Scriptura so difficult to accept? Scripture points to it just as much, if not more, than the Trinity, rapture, or 2 natures of Jesus.

When something is not specifically taught in Scripture, Catholicism teaches that Church authority is what they are to follow. It is placed on equal grounds with Scripture. If the Bible said to not practice tradition, would the Catholic Church do it anyway? Of course not! They would listen to what the Bible said. Now that we have established this, we can see that the Bible supercedes any sort of tradition. Catholics believe all practiced tradition is approved by the Bible. They believe it is biblical. Notice the Bible is acting as the final source of authority here? They are not placing tradition above the Bible when being compared to the Bible. In a direct comparison, Catholicism teaches the Bible is superior. How then can it be equal when not being directly compared? Nowhere in the Bible does it claim Sacred Tradition is inspired by God or from God. The only thing to make a claim like that is Scripture itself. Catholics claim Sacred Tradition to be equal but we can see, by the examples listed above, it certainly is not. So many religions claim to have some sort of exclusive revelation from God. Mormons claim the Book of Mormon to be high authority than the Bible. JW's claim they are the only true Christians and everyone else is deceived (Mormons claim this too BTW). Catholics teach their traditions are on equal par to the Scriptures. Christianity (and the Bible itself) teaches that only the Word of God is to act as the final authority on these matters. Even when Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit, it does not say the Spirit will give extra truth. It says the Spirit will help us understand the Scriptures.

Not all Sacred Tradition is bad. The Trinity is dead on. It is when these traditions stray from the Bible and rely on Church teachings (not Bible teachings) that problems arise. The Church does not have the authority to make calls unless they are based on Scripture. This alone makes the Church lesser than Scripture.

As long as Sacred Tradition is Biblical founded, it is wrong. As long as the Bible fully supports it, it will be blessed. Tradition is less than Scripture either way. If the Church claims they are receiving Truth from God which is not found in the Bible, they are placing the Church not only equal to Scripture, but above it. This too is wrong.

Tradition is good when it coincides with Scripture & the teachings of the apostles (which is found in Scripture oddly enough )

If Tradition is not found in the Bible, it is not to be followed. We are not to turn to Church authority as an approval. Jesus very plainly told us to not follow tradition that transgresses the commandments of God. Church authority plays no role here. Again, this supports Sola Scriptura.

What is written is what we are to follow. It is not to be "advanced" into the wisdom of the Church through tradition when it goes against the wisdom of the Word.

Remember that in the end, ALL tradition is subject to Scripture's approval. It is not equal by any means.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

Good stuff....

In the RCC, RCC's "Tradition" (as currently chosen, defined and interpreted by the RCC) is equal, inseparable and supplimental with God's Scripture so that God in His Scripture is required to agree with the RCC and the RCC (which restricts all authoritative interpretation of it's own Tradition and Scripture in its own heart to itself alone, individually) must be via the "lens" of it's own understanding of its own Tradition.

Check out: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7231168

.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 6, 2009

rojoloco said:
*snip*

........Remember that in the end, ALL tradition is subject to Scripture's approval. It is not equal by any means.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

I AGREE!

Dark_Lite · Nov 6, 2009

The fun part about Sola Scriptura is that the Bible was assembled in a distinctly non Sola Scriptura manner.

Yab Yum · Nov 6, 2009

Rhamiel said:
well the Bible did not come with a list of "these books should be in here"
so you recognize that God used a men to proclaim absolute truth that is not found in the Bible after the books of the Bible were written

The pens used to write them did not float in the air either. Providence in the hand of an author is not the same as providence in the mouth of an interpreter.

OpenDoor · Nov 6, 2009

Rhamiel said:
God used a men to proclaim absolute truth

like a prophet?
"Thus saith the LORD..."

none of the councils did that
They recognized what is true, not proclaimed what is true

do you understand the difference?

polishbeast · Nov 6, 2009

1 Corinthians 11:2 "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

OpenDoor · Nov 6, 2009

polishbeast said:
1 Corinthians 11:2 "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

do you think we all forgot about this verse?

Citizen of the Kingdom · Nov 6, 2009

Excuse me but if someone never learnt any traditions are you infering that the bible says something is missing from it?

judechild · Nov 6, 2009

rojoloco said:
If that can be accepted as Truth, why is Sola Scriptura so difficult to accept? Scripture points to it just as much, if not more, than the Trinity, rapture, or 2 natures of Jesus.

Hello.

Oh dear, but have you seen what happens when Sacred Scripture is separated from Sacred Tradition? Let me explain what I see. I see many denominations which are confused on some of the things you mention. The Trinity is openly denied by many professed Christians, even on this forum; and they use Scripture and theology to back up their claims. Baptism is disputed to be simply a free bath that can be dispensed with, strictly speaking. No, I agree with St. Basil the Great; he writes in "On the Holy Spirit" (375 AD): "The Church preserves many beliefs and practices that are generally accepted or publicly commanded. Some are taken from written teaching; others have been passed on to us 'in a mystery' by the tradition of the apostles. In relation to true religion, both of these have the same force." The bishop goes on to say that to reject certain things that have no direct written authory would injure the Gospel in its very vitals.

When something is not specifically taught in Scripture, Catholicism teaches that Church authority is what they are to follow. It is placed on equal grounds with Scripture.

Maybe you would be interested in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this subject:

1) "It pleased God, in His goodness and wisdom, to reveal Himself and to make known the mystery of His Will" (CCC 51); doubt there's an arguement there, "He has made known to us the mystery of His Will in accord with His favor that He set forth in Him" (Eph. 1:9). So, the Church acknoledges that all Scripture comes from God Himself (see also 2 Tim. 3:16).

2) The beginning of Article three states: "In order to reveal Himself to men, in the condescension of His goodness God speaks to them in human words..." (CCC 101). It then goes on to say: "God is the author of Sacred Scripture. 'The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit'" (CCC 105, quoting "Dei Verbum" (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) 11). Again, I doubt there is much dispute here. The Church acknowledges that the Scriptures are from God, and do not contain error: "... we must acknowledge that the books of cripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (Dei Verbum, 11).

3) Where we differ, though, is that in Catholic teaching: "Still, the Christian faith is not a 'religion of the book.' Christianity is the religion of the 'Word' of God" (CCC 108). In the second article of the second chapter, the Catechism states that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture come from a common sources; God Himself: "In keeping with the Lord's command, (Matt. 28, for example) the Gospel was handed on in two ways: - orally ... [and] in writing" (CCC 76). "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal" (Dei Verbum 9). This last quotation I wanted to bring up in particular because of your belief that the Church in effect treats Scripture as superior to Tradition; that is not so. It is true that Tradition cannot contradict Scripture, but that is because we believe Tradition to be a part of Divine Revelation (it's called the "Deposit of Faith"); they are equal because they are from the same source, which is God. "The apostles entrusted the 'Sacred deposit' of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church" (CCC 84; see also 1 Tim 6:20).

I realize that you do not acknowledge the authority of the Church. My point here in quoting the Catechism and Dei Verbum is so that you understand what the Catholic Church believes, and with the hope that we may discuss it in depth later.

The Church does not have the authority to make calls unless they are based on Scripture. This alone makes the Church lesser than Scripture.

The Church agrees with you; she may not make up her own docrine. "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it" (CCC 86). Again, though, we acknoledge two parts of the Deposit of Faith, and so while no dogma of the Church conflicts with Scripture, explicit references nead not be made (your point on the Trinity is a case in point).

If Tradition is not found in the Bible, it is not to be followed. We are not to turn to Church authority as an approval. Jesus very plainly told us to not follow tradition that transgresses the commandments of God. Church authority plays no role here. Again, this supports Sola Scriptura.

I do not believe that to be so. Jesus placed a Church here with authority: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:18-19). And when docrinal issues arose in the Church, it was through the authority of the Church that it was resolved (see Acts 15: 1-29). We may be able to discuss this later as well.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

SCRIPTURA MAGNUM!

OpenDoor · Nov 6, 2009

judechild
I understand that as a RC you believe in the Magistrate of the Catholic Church (admittedly I have a hard time understanding why)

Part of the reason I have a hard time-
Lets presume that one was to accept that there are teachings and traditions not in the scriptures. How would one make sure they were not following a false prophet? (I think we would agree that this is a good concern)

Specifically if one was ready to follow either the RCC or LDS how would one know which to follow?

Jesus tells us in Mathew 7, "by their fruit you will recognize them".
tbh- While I respect the great charity work the RCC has done.
Their history hasn't been as great :sorry:

From what I know of the LDS.
Outside of polygamy. They look alright.

I don't believe in what the LDS teach, but that's because its not in the scriptures.

So in summary if one was ready to accept "truths" not found in the scriptures why should they be RCC and not LDS?

polishbeast · Nov 6, 2009

OpenDoor said:
do you think we all forgot about this verse?

Actually I did, when I see the OP say things such as "The Bible does not tell us to turn to tradition"

OpenDoor · Nov 6, 2009

polishbeast said:
Actually I did, when I see the OP say things such as "The Bible does not tell us to turn to tradition"

if I may ask
which traditions do you think Paul is referring to
and why do you believe they are not in the scriptures?

judechild · Nov 6, 2009

OpenDoor said:
judechild
I understand that as a RC you believe in the Magistrate of the Catholic Church (admittedly I have a hard time understanding why)

Thank you for responding. Your question about how do you know if the Catholic Church, or any church, speaks truely or not is a good one; and I can't give you a simple answer. Personally, I've come to believe in the authority of the Church based on prayer, research, and study, over the course of about half my life (which, well, isn't that long, but still...). Looking at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, I can honestly say they are catholic. Sola Scriptura is something I used to believe in (in the earliest days of my trying to find out about God), but gradually, I realized that I'm not smart enough to figure God out; He must have given me someone who can make sure I don't go off the deep end, theologically speaking. I didn't really see it as that big of a change, just a different understanding of how God communicates. I've found that I trust the Church in the same way that I trust the guard-rail on a mountain pass; it's not there to take away your freedom, only to guide you so you don't hurt yourself.

Jesus tells us in Mathew 7, "by their fruit you will recognize them".
tbh- while I respect the great charity work the RCC has done
their history hasn't been as great

I understand, about the hypocracy, but the Church has always had sinners in her as well as saints; see the parable of the weeds among the wheat (Matt. 13:24). There will be that mix, unfortunately, until the end of time. The hypocracy of individual members, though, doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing is bad... unfortunately everyone has blood on there hands. Catholics are fond of using the expression "I won't leave Peter because of Judas". On the other hand, sometimes people don't realize the tremendous amount of good that the Church did in the middle ages either; it's crowded out by the hypocrites. Same thing happens in recent times; Mother Theresa is forgotten sometimes because the clergy sex scandel crowds her out.

So in summary if one was ready to accept "truths" not found in the scriptures why should they be RCC and not LDS?

Again, I have to reiterate that these "truths" are found in Scripture, just not explicitly so. The truth is the truth... because it's the Truth, that God has revealed. So it's not like we believe "stuff that's not in the Bible". Maybe it would help to see it musically, as a "homophonic duet". Scripture and Tradition are like a flute and a clarinet that play the same song, and support each other, but they both play under the direction of The Conductor, and so neither is in conflict with the other.

One reason why I trust the Church is because of something called "Apostalic Sucession". This is the fact that every Catholic bishop in the world - the Pope being the most visible - can trace his line back to the Apostles themselves. For another thing, the Church has not changed her dogma in 2000 years, and I have faith that she never will. I also point again to the Matthew 16 passage, and say that Jesus left us a Church to guide us. The Latter Day Saints cannot claim apostolic sucession, or uniformity of docrine throughout time.

I'd like to continue this discussion with you, if you like. How do you see the role of the Church? (as an institution, mind. We both, in a spiritual sense, probably agree fairly well that it's the communion of believers throughout time and space).

OpenDoor · Nov 6, 2009

judechild said:
I've found that I trust the Church in the same way that I trust the guard-rail on a mountain pass; it's not there to take away your freedom, only to guide you so you don't hurt yourself.

not hurting oneself is a good goal

The problem is even during Jesus time there were many devout Jews who followed the Jewish religious leaders with the same hope.

Jesus called these Jewish religious leaders, blind guides.
So watchout (beware false prophets).

judechild said:
I understand, about the hypocracy, but the Church has always had sinners in her as well as saints; see the parable of the weeds among the wheat (Matt. 13:24). There will be that mix, unfortunately, until the end of time. The hypocracy of individual members, though, doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing is bad... unfortunately everyone has blood on there hands. Catholics are fond of using the expression "I won't leave Peter because of Judas". On the other hand, sometimes people don't realize the tremendous amount of good that the Church did in the middle ages either; it's crowded out by the hypocrites. Same thing happens in recent times; Mother Theresa is forgotten sometimes because the clergy sex scandel crowds her out.

My concern is when Jesus says, "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit".

We know we all sin, and Christians can still sin
but is it a good idea to dismiss the bad fruit of an entire church (not blaming everyone in the RCC) especially if it claims to be THE CHURCH?

For yourself, how do you as a RC reconcile the bad fruit done via (or in the name of) the RCC?
If a non-Christian asked you, "why should we believe Jesus can save if He is unable to manage His Church". What do you say?

judechild said:
Again, I have to reiterate that these "truths" are found in Scripture, just not explicitly so. The truth is the truth... because it's the Truth, that God has revealed. So it's not like we believe "stuff that's not in the Bible". Maybe it would help to see it musically, as a "homophonic duet". Scripture and Tradition are like a flute and a clarinet that play the same song, and support each other, but they both play under the direction of The Conductor, and so neither is in conflict with the other.

One reason why I trust the Church is because of something called "Apostalic Sucession". This is the fact that every Catholic bishop in the world - the Pope being the most visible - can trace his line back to the Apostles themselves. For another thing, the Church has not changed her dogma in 2000 years, and I have faith that she never will. I also point again to the Matthew 16 passage, and say that Jesus left us a Church to guide us. The Latter Day Saints cannot claim apostolic sucession, or uniformity of docrine throughout time.

and the problem is the LDS just make the same claim via their history and the sucession of their prophets.

btw- I don't see the uniformity of doctrine throughout time and apparently the RCC somewhat agrees since they teach that doctrines develop over time.

So basically in Roman Catholicism, their is uniformity until it develops into something else... :sorry:

judechild said:
I'd like to continue this discussion with you, if you like. How do you see the role of the Church? (as an institution, mind. We both, in a spiritual sense, probably agree fairly well that it's the communion of believers throughout time and space).

THE CHURCH
Is the Body of Christ.
The Bride.

judechild · Nov 6, 2009

Nice to talk to you again.

OpenDoor said:
Jesus called these Jewish religious leaders, blind guides.
So watchout (beware false prophets).

And Jesus also said "He who hears you [the Apostles] hears me (Lk 10:16).

My concern is when Jesus says, "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit".

We know we all sin, and Christians can still sin
but is it a good idea to dismiss the bad fruit of an entire church (not blaming everyone in the RCC) especially if it claims to be THE CHURCH?

I didn't say I dismissed it, only that the hypocracy of certain members of the Church does not invalidate her claims. What, specifically, are you refering to?

For yourself, how do you as a RC reconcile the bad fruit done via (or in the name of) the RCC?
If a non-Christian asked you, "why should we believe Jesus can save if He is unable to manage His Church". What do you say?

"If Jesus having Judas with Him doesn't invalidate the Gospel, neither does a bad church official".

Again, Matthew 13:24-30 predicts that there will be sinners and saints in the Church until the end of time. "He replied, 'No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. / Let them grow together until harvest..." (29-30).

and the problem is the LDS just make the same claim via their history and the sucession of their prophets.

Every one I've talked to acknoledges that their community began with the "visions" of their founder. Id like to see it; but open any world almenac and you can see the chronological listing of the Popes all the way back to St. Peter.

btw- I don't see the uniformity of doctrine throughout time and apparently the RCC somewhat agrees since they teach that doctrines develop over time.

Look at it this way; docrine grows organicaly, it doesn't grow cancerously. Yes, docrine developes, the Catechism says "Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full signigicance over the course of the centuries." (CCC 66). About dogmas, it says "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogas... there is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure" (CCC 88-89).

An example of this organic growth is the Trinity. In order to combat Arianism, the Council of Nicea was called in 325 AD, and declared that Arius was wrong in preaching that Jesus "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance from that of the Father." This process would continue as the Church corrected the Nestorians, the Monophysites, and the Gnostics; all of it contributed to the organic growth of docrine. By affirming this, the Church corrected a heterodox belief, but she herself never held to that belief; that's what I mean by "uniformity of docrine".

So basically in Roman Catholicism, their is uniformity until it develops into something else...

Could you maybe cite a certain docrine that you believe changed?

THE CHURCH
Is the Body of Christ.
The Bride.

Yah, I know; it's good. But I'd like to know what you think about the Church as an institution, please.

BrendanMark · Nov 6, 2009

To transpose Scripture, one element in the canonical tradition of the Church, which was to be used with other canonical materials and practices, into the single norm of theological truth, which was to be used on its own as the foundation for argument, was to reconceive the whole scope and character of the complex canonical heritage of the Church.
Abraham, William J. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology [Oxford 1998 p. 142]

Any deep account of the canonical revolution which took place at the Reformation must acknowledge that one important factor in its origins and development was to find the God of the canonical traditions. The canonical heritage was de facto in such disrepair that the Reformers entered into a revolt against the prevailing heritage of the West in order to recover a living faith in God and to renovate the tradition along different lines from those which they had inherited. Yet they received not just the material proposals about canon which had developed in the West, they also came to possess the concept of canon which had become normative in the West. Hence the changes they proposed perpetuated the departure from the tacit conception at work in the patristic period.
Abraham, William J. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology [Oxford 1998 p. 144]

As Abraham goes on to point out, any defence of sola scriptura eventually appeals to non Scriptural concepts to justify its concepts of revelation, and every denomination ends up defining its own extra-scriptural rule of faith to define exactly how and why its literal and true interpretation of scripture is justified instead of every other literal and true interpretation found in every other denomination.

Put simply, such concepts as the Trinity and the dual natures are not obviously scriptural, and required generations of thought and spiritual development before finding, through argument, debate and near-schism, an acceptable solution. For denominations without the Trinity as normative (scripture being the only norm, creeds and councils verboten), trying to justify the Trinity and the Incarnation to every generation was tiring before religion, history and philosophy were forbidden in school. Explaining the Trinity to folk utterly unaware of the problem of the One and the Many, the mystery of consciousness whether considered scientifically or religiously, or of the interior life of prayer and contemplation, is an exercise in futility. The very idea that the Trinity is intimately related to their own conscious Self and how ones sense of identity is generated, whether by neurons or spirit, is crazy to most.

Sola scriptura and Literalism also freezes the Church and Truth in imaginary time, thousands of years ago and far away. The time of make believe, not even yesterday or a few generations ago, let alone the here and now or into the future. The idea that the Holy Spirit could work through the Church in Time, developing the theology of the Trinity, of the Incarnation and so forth through the mechanisms of the Church and its faithful, is forbidden. The Church becomes the enemy of the Christian, not the communion of salvation into which the individual can give themselves away and die to the world.

Truth becomes a concept supposedly frozen in time, yet our ideas of what the early church was and actually believed are changing as archaeology and patristic scholarship reveal more of the truth. This supposedly 100% infallible truth frozen for all eternity in time changes every time we find another ancient scroll, read another text by an ancient Father that disagrees with modern ideas of sola scriptura and so forth. If the ancients did not accept sola scriptura, why should a recreation of ancient thought insist upon it?

In one sense, utterly anathema to a doctrine of sola scriptura, this highlights something that should be obviousif one insists upon setting the story in the land of make believe, long ago and far away and utterly timeless, why take thatof all storiesliterally in ones everyday life? It should highlight the dynamic and symbolic character of the scriptures if they are to have relevance in my life today and into the future, and the culture I live in and wish to contribute to.

But to sacrifice all possibility of spiritual and intellectual development in order to insist upon a false idea of scriptural canon never intended for such a purpose will obviously create a distorted religion, as well as justifiable conflict with the secular world and other denominations and faiths, particularly those with similarly distorted intellectual bases. Why do it? Are Protestants really any more (or less) pious than Catholics or Orthodox believers? Have they found an easier path to God than St John of the Cross, St Bonaventure or St Gregory Palamas? Or did the Protestants quickly find division and schism amongst themselves reminiscent of the early church, from which the unity of Christianity may never recover?

Sola Scriptura vs. Catholic Tradition

Regular Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Member of the Round Table

Member of the Round Table

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Chewbacha

Veteran

Faith + Hope + Love

Servant of Jesus

Faith + Hope + Love

Well-Known Member

Catholic Socratic

Faith + Hope + Love

Servant of Jesus

Faith + Hope + Love

Catholic Socratic

Faith + Hope + Love

Catholic Socratic

Member

Similar threads