Posted on 09/13/2014 11:35:30 AM PDT by Blind Eye Jonez
Except that the Apostle John specifically teaches that "everything that Christ did was not written".
Your claim that EVERYTHING was written down is simply bogus. There were unwritten doctrines in the Old Testament. Assuming that there were and are none in the New is simply not justified.
No, it's really not.
The Epistles (Paul's letters, John's letters, Peter's letters, James) which comprise most of the New Testament were written, and distributed, among the early churches -- there wasn't any need for an oral tradition there. The Gospel of John and Revelation were also written by that disciple.
Not misleading at all. Jesus's overall point was that SOME traditions are valid (those from which he taught) and some were not (those of the Pharisee/scribes).
So then, let me ask this: is any tradition which makes the law of God to no effect a valid tradition?
Is it possible, in any way, that in the totality of the Catholic Church's traditions there is one which likewise runs counter to the scripture?
Wonder,
Yes there were many things that Jesus did that we’re not written down....BUT the context of the statement was that all that is needed for salvation WAS written down.
That again leads me to the question I asked..what doctrines NOT found in scripture but are essential to salvation are found tradition only?? If there aren’t any then all that is needed for salvation was written down....
In regard to unwritten traditions that you bind the conscience of believers to what are they???. Marian doctrines?? Where are they in the early fathers?? And I mean the apostolic fathers and second century fathers that are closer to apostolic teaching....it is interesting to see that in stromata Book 7 written by clement of Alexandria chapter 16....he denies the perpetual virginity of Mary....so I guess unwritten tradition didnt extend to him
No, actually they were not. The New Testament AT THE EARLIEST was only completed with the death of the Apostle John, ninety years after Christ died.
Yes, there were writings of all sorts circulating during that time...and later...not only the genuine "eventually recognized as Scriptural" writings but many "close but no cigar" writings. There was no definitive teaching as to which of all of those writings were "really Scripture"
At some point after 100AD the Church had sorted things out a bit, and the Canon was more or less stable. But that Canon itself was only arrived at by the Church's Tradition.
"So then, let me ask this: is any tradition which makes the law of God to no effect a valid tradition?
I have no idea what you mean by this.
"Is it possible, in any way, that in the totality of the Catholic Church's traditions there is one which likewise runs counter to the scripture?
No.
No, actually they were not. The New Testament AT THE EARLIEST was only completed with the death of the Apostle John, ninety years after Christ died.
Yes, there were writings of all sorts circulating during that time...and later...not only the genuine "eventually recognized as Scriptural" writings but many "close but no cigar" writings. There was no definitive teaching as to which of all of those writings were "really Scripture"
At some point after 100AD the Church had sorted things out a bit, and the Canon was more or less stable. But that Canon itself was only arrived at by the Church's Tradition.
"So then, let me ask this: is any tradition which makes the law of God to no effect a valid tradition?
I have no idea what you mean by this.
"Is it possible, in any way, that in the totality of the Catholic Church's traditions there is one which likewise runs counter to the scripture?
No.
It took some time, but I finally looked up the section, and I don't see any such "context" there.
"That again leads me to the question I asked..what doctrines NOT found in scripture but are essential to salvation are found tradition only?? If there aren’t any then all that is needed for salvation was written down....
There are several. The ones I recall quickly from memory are the "perpetual virginity of Mary", and the "Assumption of Mary into Heaven".
"In regard to unwritten traditions that you bind the conscience of believers to what are they???. Marian doctrines?? Where are they in the early fathers??
I don't have time to do any exhaustive comments. When I was studying before converting to Catholicism, I looked up and checked out several.....and they ARE found in the early fathers.
"And I mean the apostolic fathers and second century fathers that are closer to apostolic teaching....it is interesting to see that in stromata Book 7 written by clement of Alexandria chapter 16....he denies the perpetual virginity of Mary....so I guess unwritten tradition didn't extend to him.
Clement was free to follow his thoughts when he made them, as the Church hadn't made a definitive pronouncement as to whether that specific teaching was to be considered dogmatic by believing Catholics. And a number of "early fathers" believed a number of erroneous things. Some got thrown out as heretics because of them.
You wrote: “It took some time, but I finally looked up the section, and I don’t see any such “context” there.”
I mentioned it several times in previous posts that ALL that we need for salvation IS found in scripture
You wrote: “There are several. The ones I recall quickly from memory are the “perpetual virginity of Mary”, and the “Assumption of Mary into Heaven”.
So if one denies Mary’s perpetual virginity or bodily assumption they are lost??? Even though they are nowhere taught in scripture???
You wrote: “I don’t have time to do any exhaustive comments. When I was studying before converting to Catholicism, I looked up and checked out several.....and they ARE found in the early fathers.”
They actually are not....Not found in clement of rome, Ignatius. Polycarp etc... And to followup with your next statement about Clement of Alexandria being free to follow his thoughts since a definitive pronouncement was not made yet then that actually destroys wyour argument about yradition since NO definitive pronouncement would HAVE to be made since these were “traditions” already handed down.
Also if you look at pope Gelasius 494-496 in some of his writings he DENOUNCES the writings found in the apocryphal gospel Transitus Beatae Mariae as heretical.They were also denounced by another pope Hormisdus around 520. What do those writings speak of??? The assumption of Mary.. As a matter of fact roman catholic historians acknowledge that the doctrine has no basis in history or tradition BUT now the church says it did??? Again where is the proof. That is why sola scriptora is so important because if one cant prove it from scripture then a christians conscience CANNOT be bound to believe it. a pope can say that under the declaration of anathema that one MUST believe the assumption of Mary when it is NOT found in scripture but claims in is in “sacred tradition”. But even then upon closer scrutiny we see that not even the case. The link below is a good resource to start.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
It is because of items such as this that i left the RCC so many years ago since the RCC was holding onto doctrines, especially the Marian ones, that run counter to scripture. and church history and are totally blasphemous and damning to the soul. It may sound harsh but i direct you to two writings pf roman catholic saint, and one who was even declared a doctor of the church alongside Augustine, Aquinas etc... They are Alphonsus Di Ligouri Who wrote Glories of Mary. and Louis De Montfort who wrote a true devotion ti Mary. They both have the sanction and imprimater of the church so their works are recognized as “true doctrine” of the RCC and many popes John Paul 2 as an example looked to those writings as being a true description of RCC towards Mary. If you ever read it, i have, and it if doesn’t make your blood boil as to the praise to Mary where those words should be going to Christ alone then it just shows how far gone RCC theology has gone where it comes to Mary and shows why Sola scriptora is so important since those authors rely greatly on supposed tradition...
This is just a smattering of what is written: This part is from the Glories of Mary by di Ligouri in the opening section:
TO JESUS AND MARY
And now I turn to thee, O my most sweet Lady and Mother Marry. Thou well knowest that, after Jesus, I have placed my entire hope of salvation in thee; for I acknowledge that everything good—my conversion, my vocation to renounce the world and all the other graces that I have received from God—all were given me through thy means.
Where in tradition, never mind scripture, are we told that our hope of salvation is also found in Mary?? That all we have comes thru Mary from her means? What apostolic father wrote this? what 2-6th century church father wrote this way??? NONE so if it wasnt mentioned by them HOW could it come thru “sacred tradition”. Surely they would have mentioned it IF it was so important for us to believe dont you think???
OR (Glories of Mary)
St. Bonaventure says that those who make a point of announcing to others the glories of Mary are certain of heaven; and this opinion is confirmed by Richard of St. Laurence, who declares “that to honor this Queen of Angels is to gain eternal life”(”Honorare Mariam, thesaurizare est sibi vitam aeternam.”—De Loud. B.M.V. l.2, p.1); and he adds, “that this most gracious Lady will honor in the next world those who honor her in this” (”Glorificabit in futuro honorificantes se in praesenti.”—Ib.). And who is ignorant of the promise made by Mary herself, in the words of Ecclesiastes, to those who endeavor to make her known and loved here below, they that explain me shall have life everlasting;(”Qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt.”—Ecclus. xxiv. 31) for this passage is applied to her by the Church, in the office of the Immaculate Conception
OR (Glories of Mary)
Our Queen cannot deceive, and can obtain all that she wills for her clients. Moreover, “our Lord has given her so benign and compassionate a heart,” says Lanspergius, “that she cannot send away any one dissatisfied who prays to her” (”Ita benigna est, ut neminem a se redire tristem sinat.”—Alloq. l. 1, p. 4. can. 12). But how, to use the words of St. Bonaventure, canst thou, O Mary, who art the Queen of Mercy, refuse to succor the miserable? And “who,” asks the saint, “are the subjects for mercy, if not the miserable? And since thou art the Queen of Mercy,” he continues, “and I am the most miserable of sinners, it follows that I am the first of thy subjects. How, then, O Lady, canst thou do otherwise than exercise thy mercy on me?” (Tue es Regina misericordiae, et qui misericordiae subditi nisi miseri? Tu Regina misericordiae es, et ego miserrimus peccatorum, subditorum maximum; rege nos ergo, o Regina misericordiae!”—Paciucch. In Salve Reg. exc. 2.) Have pity on us, then, O Queen of Mercy, and take charge of our salvation
or (last 0ne Glories of Mary)
The second occasion on which Mary became our spiritual Mother, and brought us forth to the life of grace, was when she offered to the Eternal Father the life of her beloved Son on Mount Calvary, with so bitter sorrow and suffering
There are many more examples i could give. These are examples of what happens when one forgoes the Sola scriptora and relies on “tradition” which really is no tradition at all. Because if it was the true tradition of the church THEN it would be found in scripture and convoluted to say what the above sections from the glories of Mary purport as tradition handed down from the apostles. Rather than it being believed it should be thrown in the dung pile. Harsh words but when one gives the glory to a mere human that should go to Christ alone then it is righteous anger and indignation that i will espouse.
I saw that somebody else posted to you. But sola scriptura means scripture alone.
Yes it does BUT what was the meaning of Sola scriptora at the time of the reformation. That is what is important. Now I would agree with you that many protestants today do not know what solar scriptora actually meant at the time of the reformation. They work on a sort of solo scriptora meaning that we disregard ALL tradition. That is not the historical definition. Tradition is important BUT as I mentioned many times it is help up the lens of scripture. If a tradition says to believe a doctrine or practice BUT scripture doesn’t mention it then a believer is NOT obligated to believe it.
Even Paul was humble enough to admit that Christianity could be a fraud [it is wholly dependent upon the Truth of the Resurrection], and if so then the believers were to be most pitied for buying into the deception. [link]
(1 Cor 15:14-19)
And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
LOL. And the Protestant experience with "sola" is better??? Y'all can't even agree as to what the "Scriptura" actually means. If the Holy Spirit was actually speaking to each and every one of you, then there would be no disgreement, and in fact there would not BE umpty-thousand different Protestant variations.
In fact, the ONLY thing that those umpty-thousand different variations believe in common is that "if the RCC teaches it, then it has to be wrong". And that pretty much tells me in and of itself which position is correct.
Certainly "scriptura" is correct, but not "sola".
"All that is true is of God". I don't recall who said that, and don't have time to look it up, but it is self-evidently true.
However, I'd like to point out that your original question contradicts itself.
In the Catholic view, Scripture and Tradition are not mutually exclusive. Tradition subsumes Scripture, it is a part of Tradition.
The original premise of your question is false.
It depends on how you define tradition — some define tradition as that which is not written down. But you are right that Catholics use both tradition and scripture.
You wrote:
And the Protestant experience with “sola” is better??
I would have to say yes...because we are at least looking towards scripture...
You wrote:
Y’all can’t even agree as to what the “Scriptura” actually means. If the Holy Spirit was actually speaking to each and every one of you, then there would be no disgreement, and in fact there would not BE umpty-thousand different Protestant variations.
The definition that the reformers used is the one I go by...today I would agree with you most Protestants do not know what it meant...they have a “solo” scriptoria that excludes the Regula fide that the church always taught...and what the early church taught is found in the writings of the early church fathers...you nicely dodged the questions I asked regarding Marian teaching...But I will continue to hold you to answer those questions....I will cheat a bit for you and let you know that NOTHING of the sort of Marian doctrines that are taught today were EVER taught in the apostolic fathers.... The letter of clement of Rome to Corinth...nothing on Mary BUT it did uphold central christian doctrines....poly arp...nothing on Mary even remotely like what Rome teaches today....Ignacio’s...DOES mention Mary BUT again only as it relates to what has been taught in scripture...
So therefore the proof is on you to show that your tradition, to make it easier lets limit it to Mary, upholds what was taught in the early church. It is easy for me since in the writings of the early church it surely doesn’t..
To answer another part of your argument if someone uses the scriptures WRONGLY that doesn’t put sola scriptora to disrepute. For example if I have a users guide to say a computer and I only read part of the guide and not the whole thing is the fault in me or the guide? It’s in me in that I am not using it correctly. The fault is NOT in the concept that all I need to know to operate the computer effectively is found in the guide, “sola user guidia”. How the RCC concept of tradition would apply to the user guide example is that you could say well I was told by someone else that the you can use the computer “this way” even though “that way” is not written down in the user guide. “Nor was ever mentioned by anyone else”...
Also in response to your assertion of thousands of Protestant denominations please look at the following:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm
It show the fallacy of such an argument....also if one even looks at say two totally different denominations...say baptist or Presbyterian let’s look at the following. Do they both affirm the CORE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES NEEDED FOR SALAVATION? Yes....where do they differ? On peripheries...infant baptism vs believers baptism., church polity etc...are they doctrines essential for salvation? No
Then to let’s apply the RCC interpretation and charge to the early church...we’re they all under Rome?. No.... Did they have different traditions that they held to as in form of worship etc... Yes...so by using the definition that is ridiculously applied to ports regarding thousands of denominations then using the same standards you have to level the same charge against the early church...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.