The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[Thekla]

From II Timothy 3:16,17, among other verses. If you believe in extra-biblical revelation then you are not much of a Catholic, are you? Perhaps you might find the LDS more to your liking.

What's up with the constant LDS comparisons

Are you insinuating that RCatholics aren't Christians ?

'Cause otherwise, the LDS comparison is a non sequitur.

(Not to mention that there is no Scriptural statement, and no command from God stating "Sola Scriptura".)

 

[ivebeenshown]

Which bishop was ordained in Acts 1? The Bible I read tells me about replacing Judas, the Apostle, with Matthias, the Apostle. Apostles are not bishops.

Well, if you read the Bible again, this time more carefully, you will notice that Peter declares "let his bishopric another take" to refer to Judas and the need for someone to succeed him in his episcopate since he died.

Shall we assume that the Church still has Apostles and that they are chosen by drawing lots?

Clement (mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Philippians), who was one of the earliest bishops in Rome, wrote a letter in the first century which explains that the Apostles ordained certain men to succeed them in their episcopate once they had died.

 

[fhansen]

From II Timothy 3:16,17, among other verses. If you believe in extra-biblical revelation then you are not much of a Catholic, are you? Perhaps you might find the LDS more to your liking.

For you to get a better understanding of the Catholic perspective on revelation via Scripture and Tradition, it’s probably better to let the Catechism speak:

80 "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."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission


81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

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."44


The Church, following the words of St Paul in 2 Thess, has continued to teach accordingly from the beginning:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.


Remember that the preaching of the gospel was all done orally before and after NT scripture was penned. You can also reference John 21:25, 3John 13-14, and 2Tim 2:2 to name a few verses that directly relate to this matter.

 

[Kristos]

What's up with the constant LDS comparisons

Are you insinuating that RCatholics aren't Christians ?

'Cause otherwise, the LDS comparison is a non sequitur.

(Not to mention that there is no Scriptural statement, and no command from God stating "Sola Scriptura".)

Taking a page from the CJ playbook?

It gets old really quick...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb From II Timothy 3:16,17, among other verses. If you believe in extra-biblical revelation then you are not much of a Catholic, are you? Perhaps you might find the LDS more to your liking.

Originally Posted by Thekla What's up with the constant LDS comparisons

Taking a page from the CJ playbook?

It gets old really quick...

GT Clone Wars

 

[Standing Up]

For you to get a better understanding of the Catholic perspective on revelation via Scripture and Tradition, it’s probably better to let the Catechism speak:

80 "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."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission


81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

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."44


The Church, following the words of St Paul in 2 Thess, has continued to teach accordingly from the beginning:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.


Remember that the preaching of the gospel was all done orally before and after NT scripture was penned. You can also reference John 21:25, 3John 13-14, and 2Tim 2:2 to name a few verses that directly relate to this matter.

While the Church did continue perfectly in some things (we know this because of scripture), what's so interestingly odd about that other notion (taught the same tradition) is there are so many examples of it not happening, yet it keeps getting passed off as accurate!

 

[bbbbbbb]

What's up with the constant LDS comparisons

Are you insinuating that RCatholics aren't Christians ?

'Cause otherwise, the LDS comparison is a non sequitur.

(Not to mention that there is no Scriptural statement, and no command from God stating "Sola Scriptura".)

I am merely stating that this particular individual is unCatholic in his theology in asserting that the Bible is not the only revelation of God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not silent on the issue. Here are just a few pertinent sections from the Catechism -

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (no doubt here about what the Word of God is)

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
(no mention of anything other than the Scriptures and Jesus Christ (the living Word) as being the Word of God)

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, if you read the Bible again, this time more carefully, you will notice that Peter declares "let his bishopric another take" to refer to Judas and the need for someone to succeed him in his episcopate since he died.

Clement (mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Philippians), who was one of the earliest bishops in Rome, wrote a letter in the first century which explains that the Apostles ordained certain men to succeed them in their episcopate once they had died.

Bishopric is a weak translation in Acts 1:20. In a few older English translations the Greek word, episkope is transliterated as bishopric. Most translate it rather than transliterate it and render it as in the following:


20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and, ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’

20For it is written in [the] book of Psalms, Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it; and, Let another take his overseership.

"For it is written in the Book of Psalms,

"'May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it';

and

"'Let another take his office.'

20for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take.

20for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take.

In this verse Luke quotes Psalm 109:8 (or 108:8 in Catholic Bibles). It is variously translated as follows:

8Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

8His days are few, his oversight another taketh,


8Let his days be few, let another take his office;

8May his days be few;
may another take his office!

The point is that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. The office, or oversight, that Judas held was that of an Apostle. In no other place in scripture are Apostles equated with overseers (elders, bishops, persbyters).

 

[fhansen]

I am merely stating that this particular individual is unCatholic in his theology in asserting that the Bible is not the only revelation of God.

Is there some reason you ignored post #483, which demonstrated the other, non-biblical, source of revelation for the CC? The Church teaches that public revelation ceased after Jesus' first advent, but that revelation was written and oral.

 

[fhansen]

While the Church did continue perfectly in some things (we know this because of scripture), what's so interestingly odd about that other notion (taught the same tradition) is there are so many examples of it not happening, yet it keeps getting passed off as accurate!

We also know some relevant history from the writings of the ECFs and other extra-biblical sources. What are the examples of it "not happening"?

 

[bbbbbbb]

For you to get a better understanding of the Catholic perspective on revelation via Scripture and Tradition, it’s probably better to let the Catechism speak:

80 "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."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission


81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

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."44


The Church, following the words of St Paul in 2 Thess, has continued to teach accordingly from the beginning:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.


Remember that the preaching of the gospel was all done orally before and after NT scripture was penned. You can also reference John 21:25, 3John 13-14, and 2Tim 2:2 to name a few verses that directly relate to this matter.

It has been my understanding the Tradition never contradicts or diminishes the Word of God. Is that yours, as well?

 

[Thekla]

I am merely stating that this particular individual is unCatholic in his theology in asserting that the Bible is not the only revelation of God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not silent on the issue. Here are just a few pertinent sections from the Catechism -

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (no doubt here about what the Word of God is)

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
(no mention of anything other than the Scriptures and Jesus Christ (the living Word) as being the Word of God)

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

Uhm, you do know that the term "word of God" does not refer to what is written; the term logos only refers to what is spoken. Graphe refers to what is written.

(Then of course, Christ is referred to as the Logos).

Thus, "word of God" falls under Tradition, with what is written including some of what was said - graphe is part of Tradition.

 

[fhansen]

It has been my understanding the Tradition never contradicts or diminishes the Word of God. Is that yours, as well?

Of course, they're both considered to be the Word of God by the CC, in fact. So they can only complement each other, one enhancing our understanding of the other, together a unified source for understanding the gospel.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Uhm, you do know that the term "word of God" does not refer to what is written; the term logos only refers to what is spoken. Graphe refers to what is written.

(Then of course, Christ is referred to as the Logos).

Thus, "word of God" falls under Tradition, with what is written including some of what was said - graphe is part of Tradition.

Yes, I do know this. However, in reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is evident that references to the Word of God are virtually always to the Bible and not to Tradition. The Catechism seems to keep a clear distinction on this matter. IMO this is quite understandable lest the door be opened for other writings which may be unorthodox or heterodox as we find in other pseudo-Christian religions.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Of course, they're both considered to be the Word of God by the CC, in fact. So they can only complement each other, one enhancing our understanding of the other, together a unified source for understanding the gospel.

The difficulty with this position is that unless Tradition is elucidated in written form (which it is) one can easily assert a long-lost "oral tradition" as valid even though there is not the slightest evidence for its existence. Even worse, one might assert new Traditions given via divine revelation.

Inevitably, one must conclude that God has either revealed His will for mankind for all time or that God has never stopped revealing His will and continues His revelation. The EOC takes the former position and the RCC leans very heavily toward the latter position.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, I do know this. However, in reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is evident that references to the Word of God are virtually always to the Bible and not to Tradition. The Catechism seems to keep a clear distinction on this matter. IMO this is quite understandable lest the door be opened for other writings which may be unorthodox or heterodox as we find in other pseudo-Christian religions.

So, how does this relate to your comparison of the RCatholics to a group which is not considered Christian

And if you understand what "logos" means, and are aware that SS is not commanded by God nor stated in Scripture, why would you support Sola Scriptura ?

 

[fhansen]

Yes, I do know this. However, in reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is evident that references to the Word of God are virtually always to the Bible and not to Tradition. The Catechism seems to keep a clear distinction on this matter. IMO this is quite understandable lest the door be opened for other writings which may be unorthodox or heterodox as we find in other pseudo-Christian religions.

The Catechism quotes all kinds of sources-Augustine, Aquinas, various other saints, ECFs, Denzinger, and concilliar documents but scripture is obviously the richest and most immediate source. Since, by its nature, Tradition is unwritten, there's nothing to quote-it exists in the lived experience of the Church from her beginnings and any of the written material mentioned above is used in support of the teachings that result from that experience. In some cases, in regards to infant Baptism, for example, she makes reference to the small contribution Scripture has to offer on the matter, to the Council of Trent, to cannon Law and otherwise speaks almost solely from experience, i.e. from Tradition as revealed to her:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

 

[Standing Up]

Of course, they're both considered to be the Word of God by the CC, in fact. So they can only complement each other, one enhancing our understanding of the other, together a unified source for understanding the gospel.

How would this work in real time?

For example, the Tradition of EO is to use leavened bread at the eucharist. The Tradition of RC is to use unleavened bread.

Which Tradition is true? Or is it a user preference and not really a Word of GodTradition?

 

[Philothei]

What this has anything to do with the OP? I think this is another topic altogether please let's not discuss irrelevant topics!

 

[fhansen]

The difficulty with this position is that unless Tradition is elucidated in written form (which it is) one can easily assert a long-lost "oral tradition" as valid even though there is not the slightest evidence for its existence. Even worse, one might assert new Traditions given via divine revelation.

Inevitably, one must conclude that God has either revealed His will for mankind for all time or that God has never stopped revealing His will and continues His revelation. The EOC takes the former position and the RCC leans very heavily toward the latter position.

Well, scripture refers to oral tradition that wasn't written down. You've apparently made the determination that God should've done otherwise and recorded everything in written form but the Church maintains that the gospel was written in her heart at the beginning of Christianity, which coincides with scriptural testimony from 1Tim3:15 that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". The following are some references to the RC position on revelation. The Church teaches that revelation can and should be understood more clearly, not that it can be added to:


66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.


67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.


Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".