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.
I have no issue with you rejecting it. As a matter of logic I don't think its unreasonable to hold a position that all doctrine should be based on Sacred Scripture (although I disagree with that). I think the main issue I would have is where people make the assertion that Sacred Scripture excludes Sacred Tradition (as the Catholic Church defines it, not the "custom, legend, theological speculation" that you insinuated above).Very well, but the other side of that coin is still important. For any denominations to claim that there are other doctrines that are essential for the people to accept and affirm, and these are not based upon Scripture but on something else, would be rejected by us...which of course is precisely the reason Sola Scriptura was presented by the Reformation as the rebuttal.
OK. I will leave it at that. I am not sure that I fully understand your argument. I thought that was the crux of what you were arguing.I just see neither of those to be what we have been talking about and I have explained.
OK. This is a fair question. For me it comes down to a matter of faith (although I also believe that the Catholic Church's teaching on Sacred Tradition is at least implicit in Sacred Scripture). I happen to have faith that the Church to which I belong was founded by our blessed Lord Jesus and that the Holy Spirit guides my Church to teach the truth. She teaches Sacred Tradition, I can find nothing in the teaching that contradicts Sacred Scripture or logic, thus I believe it. And I have faith that God has drawn me into the Church where he wants me to be. Ultimately for me it is a matter of my own personal faith on the matter, although I believe that my view is also supported by Sacred Scripture and reason. I do not believe that I can convince / justify it to anyone only based on Sacred Scripture and reason, but there are versus such as 2. Thess 2:15 and the versus that relate to uniformity of mind that I could offer if pressed.I still would like to have some reply to the several questions I asked, however. For instance, what justifies Holy Tradition, the opposite of Sola Scriptura, the POV accepted by the people who reject Sola Scriptura?
Well I am not sure how you define an "essential doctrine" so it is difficult for me to answer that question. If we define it as the core things that a person needs to know in order to be saved I think they would be fairly limited: Jesus is God. He died for our sins. We should believe in him and be baptized. But Sacred Scripture teaches many other things than this, obviously that are binding on a Christian (we should not commit adultery, that there are various gifts of the Holy Spirit, that we are to commemorate the Lord's Supper, for example). It does not conclude that these things are not binding on a Christian because they are not strictly necessary for his salvation.When you said "If you are simply arguing that Sacred Scripture is materially sufficient for a person to be saved I take no issue with that" what is the argument for its opposite number? That although certain religious ideas are not essential doctrines, the church nevertheless makes them be dogmas binding on the people???
Well everyone feels that that doctrines they disagree with are not found in Sacred Scripture. I feel the same way about certain Protestant doctrines. If they thought that they were in Sacred Scripture they would agree with them, obviously.Unfortunately, what you refer to as my insinuation, is my sincere conviction. While the theory of Holy Tradition seems sensible to a lot of people who have been taught it...it's not. And that's for two reasons--
1. The doctrine is never actually backed up by the claim. It just is stipulated.
and
2. It is nothing but a theory. There is nothing in Scripture that points to it
Well dzheremi,,,,let's put it this way, the first Christians and second generation Christians were killed in pretty horrible ways by the Emperor of Rome. Do you think they went to their death FOR THEIR FAITH, without understanding it?Yes, but the question is not what the Bible is in the sense of what comprises it (i.e., that is both the OT and NT; nobody's disagreed on that since Marcion in the 140s), but rather how they could've lived by it prior to canonization, since the idea of turning to the Bible would've meant something different then than it does now in the post-canonization world that we live in.
Swag...Well everyone feels that that doctrines they disagree with are not found in Sacred Scripture. I feel the same way about certain Protestant doctrines. If they thought that they were in Sacred Scripture they would agree with them, obviously.
Yeh. I guess I cannot believe for the sake of believing. All sorts of denominations claim to the one and only that Christ had in mind, but unless the claims bear out, I cannot justify believing them simply as an act of loyalty to the institution I have chosen.OK. This is a fair question. For me it comes down to a matter of faith (although I also believe that the Catholic Church's teaching on Sacred Tradition is at least implicit in Sacred Scripture). I happen to have faith that the Church to which I belong was founded by our blessed Lord Jesus and that the Holy Spirit guides my Church to teach the truth. She teaches Sacred Tradition thus I believe it.
I think you view Sacred Tradition as a set of "custom, legend, theological speculation". Basically that the Catholic Church just makes stuff up out of thin air whenever she pleases.
I agree with you, except that I do rely on the Early Fathers at times.I agree that this definition is open to question.
I suspect that this might be what many of the more fundamentalist denominations would say, in that many of them consider every last religious issue to be answerable from a reading of Scripture and required of all Christians. No matter what the issue is, the reply is going to be a Bible quote.
Very well, but the other side of that coin is still important. For any denominations to claim that there are other doctrines that are essential for the people to accept and affirm, and these are not based upon Scripture but on something else, would be rejected by us...which of course is precisely the reason Sola Scriptura was presented by the Reformation as the rebuttal.
This is not for me,,,butYeh. I guess I cannot believe for the sake of believing. All sorts of denominations claim to the one and only that Christ had in mind, but unless the claims bear out, I cannot justify believing them simply as an act of loyalty to the institution I have chosen. It was when I realized, from study, that a lot of this was a nice tidy theory but not supported by the facts, that it fell into the same category as the Landmark Baptists' "trail of blood" story or the claim made by the JW and LDS that the church must have apostacized for some reason, only to be reborn later when God chose a prophet, etc. etc. The Roman Catholic one is better than those, to be sure, but still similar in style.
It's not that bad (thin air). Most of the dogmas that have been attributed to Sacred Tradition have at least some connection to facts. But that is not what Sacred Tradition is supposed to be based upon. You outlined a number of points in an earlier post that are supposed to be present...but aren't. Continuity, for example. That it was the conviction of the whole church. Dates back to the early days of the church, not an innovation of later times. And so on.
And here's a very practical point that doesn't cause Sacred Tradition to look persuasive. The Eastern Orthodox churches also believe in Sacred Tradition and they are at least as old as the Church of Rome. Your church considers their sacraments to be valid, etc. But they do not have the same set of doctrines based, presumably, on the same history, as your church does! If there is actually a tradition, that should not be.
Thanks for your comments.
Well I think that different folks define tradition in different ways. I would refer to Dei Verbum for the manner in which the Catholic Church defines Sacred Tradition. At least for the Catholic Church, I do not think She equates the ECF with Sacred Tradition, although they often give good witness to it.Swag...
I'll have to be honest and say that I cannot think of a Protestant teaching that is not scriptural.
There are certain beliefs that are in conflict with each other and this is unfortunate. For example:
Eternal salvation, Predestination.
The reason for this is that it would seem that either belief can be substantiated by scripture...but in reality it cannot.....and we cannot say that one or the other is wrong....(on these forums).
I also do not agree with @Albion concerning Tradition.
Tradition certainly has a place in our Christian faith. When I have a doubt about something, I turn to the Early Church Fathers....I tend to trust what they believed. THIS is Tradition. Unfortunately some Protestants do not accept that the Apostolic Fathers and the ECFs knew more about what Jesus and the Apostles taught then those that teach tody.
But wait a minute. The theory of Sacred Tradition is not that it amplifies something that's already in Scripture.Well everyone feels that that doctrines they disagree with are not found in Sacred Scripture.
Well this is kind of interesting. I haven't fully thought it over but in some sense I think we can say that there is actually only 1 Christian Church that all Christians are a part of. Being Catholic obviously I believe that you see that church fully embodied in the Catholic Church, but also in a sense I would tend to view Orthodox, Protestants, Evangelicals, etc as part of us. It's just that we have happened to have disagreements that have caused us to split with respect to certain issues, but perhaps with God's grace that those differences will resolve themselves at some future point.This is not for me,,,but
The Catholic Church IS the original church.
History states this and history cannot be changed.
The split with the Orthodox in 1,000AD did split this ONLY church....which one more closely follows the ORIGINAL tenets could be debated.
I find that after this split (and even before) the universal church began to move away from Tradition and started to create doctrine that has since caused many problems within that church, and the purity of the original church has been lost.
Man always seems to be able to ruin everything.
Not exactly. What do you mean when you say that you turn to the Early Church Fathers? Do you say that if two of them disagree, you'll just go with the opinion of the one you like better? Do you consider a fifth century "Father" to be as in synch with the Apostolic Church as, say, Clement of Rome? What if the belief in question didn't appear until several centuries after the founding of the Church? That doesn't matter when it comes to making dogmas out of what is called Sacred Tradition...but it should. And since no two of the Catholic Churches believe the same set of doctrines that they all claim are true by Tradition, what does that say bout the method itself?I also do not agree with @Albion concerning Tradition.
Tradition certainly has a place in our Christian faith. When I have a doubt about something, I turn to the Early Church Fathers....I tend to trust what they believed. THIS is Tradition.
Read Paragraph 7 of Dei Verbum.Well I think that different folks define tradition in different ways. I would refer to Dei Verbum for the manner in which the Catholic Church defines Sacred Tradition. At least for the Catholic Church, I do not think She equates the ECF with Sacred Tradition, although they often give good witness to it.
Nope. That is simply not true, not what history teaches us, no. What is true is that a lot of different Christian centers sprang up in the first century, from Africa to Britain, and they agreed on the basics. It was a Christian church with dioceses and bishops. But there was no recognition of anything like we saw after the Oriental Orthodox split off, then the Great Schism, and so on when we got rival organizations. What's more it is impossible to claim that the (Roman) Catholic Church existed before there was even any recognition of a Papacy!This is not for me,,,but
The Catholic Church IS the original church.
History states this and history cannot be changed.
The CCC states that we are all part of the one Catholic church and are thus saved. I could look up the paragraph if you wish. It might be 1271...or thereabouts.Well this is kind of interesting. I haven't fully thought it over but in some sense I think we can say that there is actually only 1 Christian Church that all Christians are a part of. Being Catholic obviously I believe that you see that church fully embodied in the Catholic Church, but also in a sense I would tend to view Orthodox, Protestants, Evangelicals, etc as part of us. It's just that we have happened to have disagreements that have caused us to split with respect to certain issues, but perhaps with God's grace that those differences will resolve themselves at some future point.
The ECFs are the ECFs.Not exactly. What do you mean when you say that you turn to the Early Church Fathers? Do you say that if two of them disagree, you'll just go with the opinion of the one you like better? Do you consider a fifth century "Father" to be as in synch with the Apostolic Church as, say, Clement of Rome? What if the belief in question didn't appear until several centuries after the founding of the Church? That doesn't matter when it comes to making dogmas out of what is called Sacred Tradition...but it should. And since no two of the Catholic Churches believe the same set of doctrines that they all claim are true by Tradition, what does that say bout the method itself?
Well I wouldn't call it as a matter of loyalty to an institution. More than anything I would say that it is loyalty to God and faith in God. I could not leave the Catholic Church because I honestly believe that this is where God wants me to be. To leave the Catholic Church would be to not follow what I believe God wants me to do.Yeh. I guess I cannot believe for the sake of believing. All sorts of denominations claim to the one and only that Christ had in mind, but unless the claims bear out, I cannot justify believing them simply as an act of loyalty to the institution I have chosen.
It was when I realized, from study, that a lot of this was a nice tidy theory but not supported by the facts, that it fell into the same category as the Landmark Baptists' "trail of blood" story or the claim made by the JW and LDS that the church must have apostacized for some reason, only to be reborn later when God chose a prophet, etc. etc. The Roman Catholic one is better than those, to be sure, but still similar in style.
You seem to have a different view of what Sacred Tradition is than what the Catholic Church actually teaches with respect to it. The Catholic does not define Sacred Tradition merely as a matter of consensus. This is how she defined it in Vatican 2:It's not that bad (thin air). Most of the dogmas that have been attributed to Sacred Tradition have at least some connection to facts. But that is not what Sacred Tradition is supposed to be based upon. You outlined a number of points in an earlier post that are supposed to be present...but aren't. Continuity, for example. That it was the conviction of the whole church. Dates back to the early days of the church, not an innovation of later times. And so on.
And here's a very practical point that doesn't cause Sacred Tradition to look persuasive. The Eastern Orthodox churches also believe in Sacred Tradition and they are at least as old as the Church of Rome. Your church considers their sacraments to be valid, etc. But they do not have the same set of doctrines based, allegedly, on the same Sacred Tradition, as your church does! If there is actually a tradition, this should not be.
Thanks for your comments.
I'm not arguing this Albion.Nope. That is simply not true, not what history teaches us, no. What is true is that a lot of different Christian centers sprang up in the first century, from Africa to Britain, and they agreed on the basics. It was a Christian church with dioceses and bishops. But there was no recognition of anything like we saw after the Oriental Orthodox split off, then the Great Schism, and so on when we got rival organizations. What's more it is impossible to claim that the (Roman) Catholic Church existed before there was even any recognition of a Papacy!
Whatever. It does need to be said, on this thread, that there was no ONE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH established in the first century, even if you want to think there was. Indeed, historians say there were at least 80.I'm not arguing this Albion.
I'm not going to argue whether or not water is wet.
I'm not debating it. There was no unified church in the first century and THAT is the verdict of history.It's just history....you either can accept it or not. But you cannot debate it
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?