Replies

And I thank you for your considerate replies.

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.

That the Apostolic revelation was at first transmitted orally is stipulated. It seems to be your position, though, not mine, that there is a separate apostolic oral tradition with content that is different than what is contained in Scripture but nevertheless is binding on the Christian conscience.

Scripture itself was tradition. The command to baptize was tradition, as was the fact that Jesus is God. Scripture is written tradition.

Again, if there are unwritten Apostolic traditions (that is, doctrinal truths from the Apostles themselves) passed down orally in the Church through her Tradition that are different from that which was inscripturated, that are binding on the Christian conscience as an additional rule of faith then I would like to see that content. We are not talking here just about an issue of Tradition as an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, but of supposed doctrinal truths that are part of revelation that are not contained in Scripture.

Was the entirety of the apostolic message preserved in Scripture alone or not?

To conclude from the mere fact that for a period of time the Gospel was given orally it necessarily follows that alleged unwritten traditions constitute an extra-scriptural rule of faith to be administered exclusively by Rome is a non-sequitur.

A key point of sola scriptura is authority. Who is the authority for the faith derived from sola scriptura?

The Author and Completer of Faith, The Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last?

Who, for example, determines whether or not there is the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist? Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? You?

Who determines?

"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet" - Gregory of Nyssa

Or to put it in the words of the Apostle Paul:

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
I Corinthians 4:6

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.

Again then, can you can explain to me why someone in a position of authority fairly early in the history of the Church such as Cyril, a BISHOP, no less, could tell his catechumens that if he were to present any teaching which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it?

Austine says the same thing:

I do not want you to depend on my authority, so as to think that you must believe something because it is said by me; you should rest your belief either on the canonical Scriptures, if you do not see how true something is, or on the truth made manifest to you interiorly, so that you may see clearly, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 147,Chapter 2, p. 171).
    But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief , Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 147, Chapter 4,p. 173).
    There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind (NPNF1, Vol. 4, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XI, Section 5).
    This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other (Ibid., Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIII, section 5).
    For, as regards any writing professing to come immediately from Christ Himself, if it were really His, how is it not read and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in the Church, which, beginning with Christ Himself, and continued by His apostles, who were succeeded by the bishops, has been maintained and extended to our own day (Ibid., Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XXVIII, section 4–5).
    Now, who is it that submits to divine Scripture, save he who reads or hears it piously, deferring to it as of supreme authority (Ibid., Vol6, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Book I, Chapter XI). 239 Ibid., Vol. 1, Augustin, City of God 11.3

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.

That is true. But the only formal authority they ever called upon is Scripture. I could answer you again with Augstine's words:

You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?

And here he says,

For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine.

Augustine.NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 148, §15.

Cordially

I'm not sure I can rejoin without repeating. I think my points were well made and don't seem them effectively rebutted. Of course, that would be my opinion. :)

What I can't seem to communicate to you effectively is that scripture alone has no authority. It cannot be put on the stand and say Zwingli is right, Luther wrong on what John 6 means... or the reverse. It cannot be deposed directly on the question of Luther is correct, according to itself, on what the Sacraments are and the Church wrong.

So when you say "the authority of scripture," it necessarily always follows "scripture according to whom?"

Nor can I seem to communicate the intertwining of scripture and tradition. But I'll try again.

Take this portion:

Apostolic traditions (that is, doctrinal truths from the Apostles themselves) passed down orally in the Church through her Tradition that are different from that which was inscripturated,

What qualifies under this category depends entirely on what you believe is inscripturated. Is the Real Presence inscripturated? If you say no, then it is tradition; because it is deemed not inscripturated and is definitely "binding on the Christian conscience as an additional rule of faith."

The same for all other dogma and doctrine, liturgy and praxis of the orthodox faith.

Thanks very much for your reply.