Sola Scriptura

[steve_bakr]

No, we still are in disagreement on this matter. To you, Tradition is an imaginary stream of opinion that amounts to a supplement to God's Holy Word, a second source of revelation equal to the Bible. To us, tradition is just what it would be if we were speaking of history rather than religion. IOW, it's a gauge of the church's interpretation of Scripture through the ages, not a supplement or appendix to Scripture. Tradition is used, just like Reason, to understand Scripture, that's all.

Well, that's how Catholics would like us to think of it, but in reality it's still Scripture vs. Tradition.

When I said that we were in agreement about the existence and importance of Tradition, I was not referring to you but the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Also, please don't mischaracterize what my beliefs are and redefine them into what is YOUR perception of my beliefs. BTW, you still cannot isolate the Holy Scriptures from the Tradition through which they were formed without loss.

 

[Albion]

When I said that we were in agreement about the existence and importance of Tradition, I was not referring to you but the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Also, please don't mischaracterize what my beliefs are and redefine them into what is YOUR perception of my beliefs.

You addressed your post to me, didn't you? If there is any mistake about what you were saying or to whom, that wouldn't be my fault. But don't worry, I won't try to carry on any conversations with you in the future lest you become outraged once again over nothing. Sheesh.

 

[steve_bakr]

You addressed your post to me, didn't you? If there is any mistake about what you were saying or to whom, that wouldn't be my fault. However, I will be sure not to accidentally outrage you in the future.

I was responding to your reference to the Traditional Churches. Also, I don't recall being outraged, Friend, I just didn't want you to redefine my beliefs by telling me that I believe that Tradition is "imaginary."

 

[Albion]

I was responding to your reference to the Traditional Churches. Also, I don't recall being outraged, Friend, I just didn't want you to redefine my beliefs to me in terms of my believing that Tradition is "imaginary."

You have every right to believe in the imaginary source of guidance that is often called Tradition, and I didn't say anything to the contrary.

 

[steve_bakr]

You have every right to believe in the imaginary source of guidance that is often called Tradition, and I didn't say anything to the contrary.

I tried to edit that but I lost my connection. We can disagree without being disingenuous, can't we?

Actually--to be honest--I have just experienced the loss of a longtime friend of our family in a tragic accident, so my nerves are a bit ragged.

 

[Montalban]

No, we still are in disagreement on this matter. To you, Tradition is an imaginary stream of opinion that amounts to a supplement to God's Holy Word, a second source of revelation equal to the Bible.

That's what Catholic teaching is to you. Not what Catholics would believe.

Catholics would not say that they believe in something imaginary. Secondly it is God's holy Word too!

To us, tradition is just what it would be if we were speaking of history rather than religion. IOW, it's a gauge of the church's interpretation of Scripture through the ages, not a supplement or appendix to Scripture. Tradition is used, just like Reason, to understand Scripture, that's all.

How'd they know what was scripture?

 

[Montalban]

Actually--to be honest--I have just experienced the loss of a longtime friend of our family in a tragic accident, so my nerves are a bit ragged.

I am very sorry to hear that

 

[Montalban]

You have every right to believe in the imaginary source of guidance that is often called Tradition, and I didn't say anything to the contrary.

You have mistaken your own belief about Catholicism with what Catholics believe.

Catholics would not state that they believe in things imaginary.

Unfortuantely your post shows you let this bias into your description making it a terrible straw-man!

 

[Standing Up]

Go check it out ...

(though translations tend to update the language).

So, is that a no?

Is your current septuagent what they used 2000 years ago? Easy question. Yes or no.

 

[Montalban]

Regardless of what Orthodox believe on the matter it would still negate one poster's rule about 'agreement on 'x' amount of books' - which I'm still waiting to see developed into a point

 

[Standing Up]

We may disagree regarding certain aspects of Tradition, but we are in agreement that Tradition exists and is an integral part of the faith. BTW, it is not Scipture vs. Tradition; it is Scripture and Tradition.

What's interesting to me is early Tradition doesn't match later Tradition. For example as regards, easter, baptism, priest or elder, sacrifice or thanksgiving, ever-virgin or virgin at birth. Found this out as I've agreed to use scripture and very early tradition that ties to scripture/apostles.

 

[Thekla]

So, is that a no?

Is your current septuagent what they used 2000 years ago? Easy question. Yes or no.

As far as I know (though some versions use a Rabbinic translation of the 2cnd c. for Daniel), yes.

And not an "easy question"; I have no originals to compare it to.

 

[Thekla]

What's interesting to me is early Tradition doesn't match later Tradition. For example as regards, easter, baptism, priest or elder, sacrifice or thanksgiving, ever-virgin or virgin at birth. Found this out as I've agreed to use scripture and very early tradition that ties to scripture/apostles.

This is a theory, but it has not been substantiated and finds not a little basis in disagreement in "readings" (interpretation, new style).

 

[Albion]

What's interesting to me is early Tradition doesn't match later Tradition. For example as regards, easter, baptism, priest or elder, sacrifice or thanksgiving, ever-virgin or virgin at birth. Found this out as I've agreed to use scripture and very early tradition that ties to scripture/apostles.

Well, we have the answer to that and can fix it in a jiffy. We call it "development of doctrine."

Any time Tradition conflicts with itself, we call it revelation that is in the process of changing. That's what makes Tradition what it is, you see--it was always thus until it needed to change. It's true because it has always been the same and it's living because it never is the same. "Prots," by the way, don't have the certainty that Tradition brings. I think what this means is that we don't have the assurance of knowing that we belong to a church that never changes until it changes.

 

[Montalban]

Well, we have the answer to that and can fix it in a jiffy. We call it "development of doctrine."

You only have to look at the church in England under Henry VIII - very nearly Catholic, to 'evangelical' under Edward VI, back towards Catholic under Elizabeth I

 

[Standing Up]

Well, we have the answer to that and can fix it in a jiffy. We call it "development of doctrine."

That and the redefinition of apostolic succession from "teach the same" to "offer sacrifice with a priest duly ordained".

Any time Tradition conflicts with itself, we call it revelation that is in the process of changing. That's what makes Tradition what it is, you see--it was always thus until it needed to change. It's true because it has always been the same and it's living because it never is the same. "Prots," by the way, don't have the certainty that Tradition brings. I think what this means is that we don't have the assurance of knowing that we belong to a church that never changes until it changes.

Well, P thinks Tradition is wrong. And it is as currently practicied, but there is other Tradition from very early on that ties out to scripture (easter, priesthood of believer, baptism, thanksgiving only, virgin at birth, 5 solas, etc). So, while EO and RC conflict with their Traditions, the very early church did not.

In a way, it is a shame that they have muddied Tradition with their contradictions.

 

[Standing Up]

As far as I know (though some versions use a Rabbinic translation of the 2cnd c. for Daniel), yes.

And not an "easy question"; I have no originals to compare it to.

My error for misreading your assertion that you had the same, when you don't know.

 

[Thekla]

My error for misreading your assertion that you had the same, when you don't know.

As the originals of the NT and the Masoretic are not extant, no Jew and no Christian can say precisely that they "have the same".

 

[Albion]

That and the redefinition of apostolic succession from "teach the same" to "offer sacrifice with a priest duly ordained".

I agree with you that the position of the presbyter was gradually changed--something that the Reformation put high on its list of reforms needing to be made--but that's not the issue with Apostolic Succession. The problem with AS is that it was originally a good idea for the maintenance of good order and became the test of the validity of all ordinations, sacraments and the church itself.

Well, P thinks Tradition is wrong. And it is as currently practicied, but there is other Tradition from very early on that ties out to scripture (easter, priesthood of believer, baptism, thanksgiving only, virgin at birth, 5 solas, etc). So, while EO and RC conflict with their Traditions, the very early church did not.

In a way, it is a shame that they have muddied Tradition with their contradictions.

Very well, but here's a point we need to remember. The theory of Tradition is not just that something is old and the church decides to say that God was behind it. More than that, for the alleged Tradition to be true--according to the theory--it must meet certain tests.

It must have been continuous from the beginning. It must have been believed throughout the Christian world, not just in a certain nation, etc. And it must have been believed by all the rank and file of the people, not just some scholars or ECFs.

There is hardly any doctrine created through Tradition, despite all the pious talk about Tradition, that meets the definition! In the end, it's just a pick and choose what you want by the church higher-ups. And this they want us to consider to be superior to God's Word!

 

[steve_bakr]

I agree with you that the position of the presbyter was gradually changed--something that the Reformation put high on its list of reforms needing to be made--but that's not the issue with Apostolic Succession. The problem with AS is that it was originally a good idea for the maintenance of good order and became the test of the validity of all ordinations, sacraments and the church itself.

Very well, but here's a point we need to remember. The theory of Tradition is not just that something is old and the church decides to say that God was behind it. More than that, for the alleged Tradition to be true--according to the theory--it must meet certain tests.

It must have been continuous from the beginning. It must have been believed throughout the Christian world, not just in a certain nation, etc. And it must have been believed by all the rank and file of the people, not just some scholars or ECFs.

There is hardly any doctrine created through Tradition, despite all the pious talk about Tradition, that meets the definition! In the end, it's just a pick and choose what you want by the church higher-ups. And this they want us to consider superior to God's Word!

It is not the Church's teaching that Tradition is superior to Holy Scripture.