Posted on 06/09/2014 9:26:16 PM PDT by Salvation
Scripture and Tradition
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
What is Tradition?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Handing on the faith
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
"Commandments of men"
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
“Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations.
30,000 of them are Protestant denominations, I read. Amazing, isn’t it, the diversity of faiths that God implanted.”
A house divided against itself will fall. Profound words?
If it is not the church which can determine and authenticate the canon of Scripture who can?
If you surrender your authority externally to another then it is not yours to surrender to God when you go within. Go within, find the Holy Spirit and allow it to guide you.
Do you believe? And do those sign follow YOU?
Acts 8 and 11 are describing Confirmation which is in addition to Baptism. This in no way negates the necessity of Baptism. In Acts 8 it explicitly says that they were previously baptized. In Acts 1 Jesus is foretelling the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is because of this descent that the church can administer the sacraments and teach with authority. Welcome to the Catholic Church!
It is this division caused by the Reformation that has lead to the loss of faith and secularism that we see today.
So you know nothing about textual issues then?
In fact, why do we accept Mark or Luke as Scripture since neither was an apostle nor a witness to our Lord?
They were companions of the apostles.
It is only on the authority of the Church church which accepted them as Scripture.
Agree ...
If it is not the church which can determine and authenticate the canon of Scripture who can?
Here is where your Romanism trips you up. The church doesnt determine canonicity ... God determined it. The NT was God-breathed, therefore it is authoritative. It is God who determined the canon via inspiration of the texts. The only thing left for the church to do was to recognize those texts that were authoritative ... and they did very early on (long before the councils in 300+ AD.)
By 60 AD Peter already recognized Pauls writings as scripture ... because they were written by Paul! Peter didn't need any council or church to tell him that ... he recognized the apostolic authority of Pauls writing ... and so did all the churches. That Peter recognized Pauls writings as scripture before the completion of the NT also shows that the recognition of the canon was gradual (since Revelation was not even penned until 95 AD).
The church doesn't determine the canon, God determined it by inspiring the writing.
As you can tell by my comments, my conversations with the Priest are quite unusual. Funny how he asks permission if it is OK to discuss my comments with his spiritual mentor!!!
Profound words all right--from he "House Divided" speech, one of Abraham Lincoln's best-known speeches.
NICE try.
A house divided against itself will fall.
Profound words?
“Profound words all right—from he “House Divided” speech, one of Abraham Lincoln’s best-known speeches.
NICE try.”
Cloudmountain.... must be too many clouds on that mountain.... Abraham Lincoln took it fro Jesus’ response to the Pharisees when they accused Him of doing Satan’s work...
Luke 11:17
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall.
My apologies
I suggest the catechism.
We would say things like “ORDINARILY” necessary. Extraordinary situations make for extraordinary ... situations!
BUT, if he thinks he’s dying, but then his life is saved, while it’s not for ME to ID his destination, certainly his appreciation and understanding of IHS is defective if he does not seek the sacraments.
False opposition. Begs the question -- which is: Whether and in what way are the acts (or some of them) of the Church rightly described as the acts of God?
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to ...."Related questions would be about the word "Apostle", and what are we to make of this?
"... .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me."It seems to me that there is ample evidence in Scripture to support, if not conclusively, the contention that the leaders of the Church have the gift of authoritative teaching.and
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
It's all very well to say God made the canonical books canonical. Other recent threads about those who want to reject most of Paul suggest that some who call themselves Christians do not recognize God's closing the canon, with some books in and some books out.
And mine to you.
Yes, thank you. But this is about the Roman Catholic Church.
And God gave the authority to determine or recognize the Canon to the Apostles.
Yes, Peter accepted Paul's writings because Peter was the Apostle to whom the LORD Jesus Christ gave the keys to he kingdom of heaven. Peter also pointed out they were difficult to understand. Who has the authority to interpret what Paul wrote ? Peter certainly does.
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
“Peter and his successors”
The promise is to Peter and the Church. Do you believe there are tares in the Catholic priesthood and church?
“evil of Protestantism”
It was believing on the Lord and later reading the whole Bible that drew me close to Him, and that is what Bible-believing Christianity is. And if not for it, the simple Gospel accepted by simple faith would have been lost in all the Catholic Church’s rituals and excesses. How much do you imagine was spent on “recognizing” JP II was a “saint?” Cont’d
On individual interpretations:
If someone truly accepts the Gospel as true, then if they go the Lord asking Him to show them and guide them in interpreting Scripture, then He will. James even promises wisdom if we ask. From what I see, though, the Catholic priesthood has replaced that by saying some things about the Bible need to be interpreted instead by science, which is why its official position supports evolution. Do you agree?
“Didn’t fall from the sky.”
“All Scripture is God-breathed.” HE is the only author. There is no question that it was going to turn out how He willed it to before time began.
“Jim Jones”
From what I saw on PBS about him, he one day threw the Bible on the ground in church and said to follow Him, not it. The Bible said for us to beware of false teachers. And in different ways the Catholic Church has been that, too. Cont’d
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Truth Handling and Teaching Authority
Beginning Catholic: Church Authority In Scripture [Ecumenical] Lists Every Catholic Should be Familiar With: The 3 Pillars of the Church's Authority
No. The Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ with authority to interpret Scripture by his disciples and successors. As Scripture itself says there were many things Christ said and did that were not written. Catholics get their understanding from Scripture from Scriptural text, history, traditions, ritual, and revelation. It is an unbroken Truth that will last till the end of time. David Koresh or Jim Jones, Billy Graham, Rev. Moon, or the Rev. Farrakhan have no more authority to interpret the Bible that you or I do. That authority is the exclusive prerogative of the Catholic Church. The “Rock” on which Christ’s Church is founded. The central belief of the Church is the Holy Eucharist. It is the center of the Church because it is Christ truly present in body, blood, soul, and Divinity.
Reject this belief and all else is theater and farce.
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.