This involves both praxis and theology, it is key in both. Catholics believe in the Real Presence, many adherents of sola scriptura do not. So how can scripture rule the Church here?
And yet, if you look at the entirety of writings of the early church Fathers, what did they do? They never appeal, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of Revelation.
It is impossible or at least impractical for sola scriptura to rule church doctrine and practice, because it means each individual rules the church with his/her interpretation.
If you had said that in the bishop of Jerusalem's catechism class in the middle of the 4th century he would have flunked you. His Catechetical Lectures constitute an extensive and comprehensive explanation of the faith of that place and time. The following may sound strange to the ears of a modern Roman Catholic, but Cyril was a BISHOP, ok, and yet he actually states explicitly in Lecture 4 that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it!
Here: Lect. IV. 17
How Cyril could expect them to do that without using their private interpretive faculties is beyond me. But Springfield Reformer has already shown the impossibility of avoiding the fact of private interpretation because even where there is a claimed infallible decree or prophecy, the one who believes the decree is infallible still has to interpret it himself, and even if there were an infallible interpretation of the infallible decree, the infallible interpretation would still have to interpreted, and so on.
But according to Cyril, his very authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. Even when he tells his catechumens that they are receiving traditions, and exhorts them to hold to them, what is the sole source of that tradition?
"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts"
Lect. V. 12 (starting at bottom of page 57)
And Holy Scripture cannot be put in dock and testify whether Luther is correct or or Zwingly or Calvin - or you.
Sola Scriptura did not start with Luther, Zwingly or Calvin, or me. Although not with the nickname "sola scriptura", it was, as an operative principle, simply taken for granted by the early church.
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."
Gregory of Nyssa:
Dogmatic Treatises, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", p. 439
Cordially,
IMHO, it's a fools errand to try to separate scripture and tradition. Consider this: At first the NT was not written but transmitted orally.
Scripture itself was tradition. The command to baptize was tradition, as was the fact that Jesus is God. Scripture is written tradition.
Scripture and tradition have to be taken together. Tradition includes beliefs, liturgy and practices of the apostolic faith, the creeds… We don't separate these out from scripture, rather they go together..
As for Cyril, he is teaching both as well:
For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith.
The one teaching of the faith according to whom? The scriptures (meaning) according to whom? The Apostolic Church - not scripture alone.
A key point of sola scriptura is authority. Who is the authority for the faith derived from sola scriptura? Who, for example, determines whether or not there is the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist? Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? You?
Each of these men and each individual has equal authority under sola scriptura, not the catholic Church. The Catholic Church has never been sola scriptura, because then it would cease to be catholic.
When major disagreements on the meaning of scripture arose, the Church met to determine which is correct, based on the faith handed down from Christ through His Apostles.
This, the authority of the Church to teach one faith, ended with the Reformation, and this is why I say this was the beginning of the dogma of sola scriptura. Those who teach this are not catholic for they have left the authority of the Church.
Thanks for your reply.
Thanks for the ping. Cyril is amazing. Learning so much ...