Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Both sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession have been passed down to us from the Apostles.
HisKid1973 said:What are the sacred traditions the original apostles didn't tell us? Wouldn't we have all we need to know Christ and mature in Him from the original apostles ?
That doesn't really answer the question being asked though.It is a pretty thick book, but I would suggest you obtain and refer to a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which goes into more detail about the relationship between sacred Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church.
It is a pretty thick book, but I would suggest you obtain and refer to a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which goes into more detail about the relationship between sacred Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church.
SolomonVII said:That doesn't really answer the question being asked though.
Surely in a book that thick, a practicing believer would remember one or two teachings that come from sacred tradition that scripture doesn't cover.
No, thanks.Tradition teaches the manner of Peter and Paul's death, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary into heaven. It also hands down to us various stories about the other Apostles, their ministries, and their deaths. It also affirms some teachings we find in Scripture such as the real presence of the body,blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I gave you some examples, but a discussion of these would require a separate thread.
No, thanks.
I think this gives something concrete about what Sacred Tradition is all about.
Holy Scripture, specifically the NT, I think, is a testimony to Jesus Christ; it is not Jesus Christ himself.
I know of none that disagree with that.
But I also know of none that thinks that has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with embracing Scripture as the rule/norma normans in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us.
I know of none who believe that the laws of the juristiction of San Jose,l CA. is The USA. But they may still affirm the Rule of Law.
Do all Sola Scriptura adherents hold the same dogmas ?
Do all those that reject Scripture as the rule in norming all embrace the exact same dogmas? The OOC, the EOC, the RCC, the LDS?
Do even those that embrace their own denominations' current interpretation of that denominations' own "Tradition" as a rule for OTHER teachers but not self alone embrace the exact same Dogmas - the EOC, OOC and RCC? Original sin? Purgatory? Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff? Etc.?
My question was: do all those who adhere to Sola Scriptura hold the same dogma ?
Do all those who adhere to Holy Tradition hold the same dogma? No. The question is off-target.
What matters is knowing what is the real authority, not who interprets it in which way. There is no way, ever, that 100% of the people involved are going to think identically, no matter what they are given to follow.
The topic of the thread is Sola Scriptura, so the question was targeted to the topic of the thread.
And there is much agreement on core dogma among the Sola Scriptura churches.Among the Tradition Churches there is much agreement on core dogma, with some exceptions re: developments in the west.
Perhaps you can provide some description of the range or not of core dogma among Sola Scriptura Churches ...
If it is acceptable for a range of belief (re: dogma) as long as there is one authority, in the case of Sola Scriptura - Scripture, then I'm not sure why a narrower range of dogmatic beliefs among the Tradition Churches would be considered problematic by you or any SS adherent.
Of course, but it is fair to point out that if Sola Scriptura is supposed to have a shortcoming in that not everyone reads Scripture the same, you aren't able to offer us anything better.
And there is much agreement on core dogma among the Sola Scriptura churches.
Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, the two sacraments of the Gospel, no intermediaries between God and Man, etc. Yes, there are basic core principles held in common.
Here's the main one--Scripture is the word of God. You suggest using traditions instead, even though they solve no problem that following God's word poses. Why would it make sense to go with a different authority that is no improvement and is of man instead of God? And that's not all.
There is some disagreement in the Church and in the Orthodox but these disagreements have not lead to denominatinalism as seen in protestantism.
Then that should be how we look at every church, whether Catholic or Protestant, Sola Scriptura or Traditionist.I disagree with a lot of other Catholics about a number of things but, at the end of the day, everyone understands that those disagreements are between each individual and God.
This may be true, but apparently a lot of protestant churches feel the "side issues" are important enough that they divide up along the lines of these disagreements. For example, some protestant churches teach that you have to believe in creationism. There is disagreement as to whether miracles are still happening,etc.
Of course, you find all the same disagreements within the Church. The difference is we don't divide ourselves up along the lines of these disagreements.
This may be true. However, the reason Protestants switch churces more readily is precisely the opposite of what you are thinking. It's because they aren't seen as abandoning the "only real church founded by Jesus, etc." but that they are merely moving to another, equally valid, church of Christ.but the person in the pew next to me in the pew might be. But we aren't going to go to different Churches because of that.
But the protestants will.
But these basic core doctrines apparently aren't enough to hold the protestant churches together.
Tradition is not the authority over the Bible but along with the Bible and the tradition was not invented by sinful man but by Jesus who was not sinful and was God and the Word made Flesh.
it solves a lot of problems. People on their own straight out do know how to read and interpret the Bible on their own.
Of course, but it is fair to point out that if Sola Scriptura is supposed to have a shortcoming in that not everyone reads Scripture the same, you aren't able to offer us anything better.
Such as ...And there is much agreement on core dogma among the Sola Scriptura churches.
Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, the two sacraments of the Gospel, no intermediaries between God and Man, etc. Yes, there are basic core principles held in common.
Here's the main one--Scripture is the word of God. You suggest using traditions instead, even though they solve no problem that following God's word poses. Why would it make sense to go with a different authority that is no improvement and is of man instead of God? And that's not all. In addition, I disagree with the proposition that there is a narrower range of dogmatic beliefs among the Tradition churches. We, after all, follow the Bible for ALL our doctrine; those other churches rely upon scripture for most of what they believe and only supplement it with traditions when it comes to the beliefs that are not held in common by all or almost all Christian churches. Why do you believe that God is the Creator of the universe, for instance? Not Tradition. You would immediately cite the Bible if that question were put to you.
Given that only a much narrower range of issues is treated by Tradition, the only reason that disagreements over the resultant doctrines can be called 'narrower' is because Tradition covers less.
If you're counting noses, I don't see that that makes much difference. EVERY Catholic church--RC, EO, OO, OC, Indy, etc. has its own version of Tradition.
Then that should be how we look at every church, whether Catholic or Protestant, Sola Scriptura or Traditionist.
It may look that way at first glance, but i think that's a mistake. While the Catholic churches consider their disagreement sufficient to break all intercommunion--the EO and RC, for instance, do not allow their people to communion in the other's churches--the great majority of Protestant churches consider all Christian churches to be valid and do not treat visitors from other denominations as not fully Christian. They also do not consider any of those issues you pointed to as necessary, as dogma, or as basic. But when the various Catholic churches have a disagreement, it's a "one true church" issue!
you certainly do. You've picked on a few issues that have been "hot button" ones in recent years, but the disagreements do not pose the threat to fellowship that almost any disagreement between the Catholic-type churches does. They are still arguing over the shape of icons and who has the more prestige--the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Constantinople! With Creationism, there's at least a serious matter being debated.
This may be true. However, the reason Protestants switch churces more readily is precisely the opposite of what you are thinking. It's because they aren't seen as abandoning the "only real church founded by Jesus, etc." but that they are merely moving to another, equally valid, church of Christ.
Did you read the doctrines I identified when asked what basic or core doctrines there might be? Creationism certainly is not where any reasonable listing of "core doctrines" would start.
That's what people who want to believe in traditions say, but there's absolutely nothing to it. These are traditions of men; they are traced to various men who are always quoted as the backing for them; and they can be identified as to when the seem to have started.
What of the alternative--Tradition? Not one person in a hundred can even tell you where this stuff came from.
Anyway, it is no shortcoming in Scripture if any of us consults a dictionary, Bible scholars, or anything else that helps. You'd dothe same with Tradition if you weren't content to say "Whatever the Catechism says, I'll go with that."
1. John 20:31, "these things are written (inscripturated) so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you have life in His name."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?