catholicsphere

In the first installment of this “Swayed by anti-Catholicism” series I briefly addressed the issue of sola Scriptura (or Scripture alone) as a fundamental problem to most of the anti-Catholic arguments against Catholic doctrine because it contradicts itself; it is not a model we find in the Scriptures, let alone the history of the Church.

This ultimately leads us to the discussion of Scripture and Tradition, which is the focus of this entry.

Let’s go back to the letter, “Leaving the Catholic Church: My Letter of Resignation”:

As I have shown above there are a number of traditions of the RCC that are not in agreement with the Scriptures. What does the Bible say about the authority of Scripture? In 2 Timothy 3:16 St Paul writes: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be perfect, equipped for every good work.”

There has been plenty written about the interpretation of the passage cited within the context of all of Scripture, so there is no need to re-hash it here. But there is a logical problem present here in asking the Scriptures to establish itself as authority. That’s like asking me if I am credible. It’s just not convincing without something else to confirm the facts.

But, before I go any further, let me take a moment to briefly clarify the Catholic teaching on the Scriptures; lest there be some who continue to think that the Catholic Church disregards and lacks respect for the Scriptures.

The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is the written word of God; while she does not hold that the Bible is the ONLY word of God, for God speaks to us in many ways, not merely through the Bible.

As the word of God, the Church handles the Scriptures as she would the body of Christ; holding it in high esteem.

The Catholic Church teaches that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”; professing that we do encounter Christ Jesus most assuredly in the Biblical texts.

The Catholic Church holds that, in Scripture, there is basis for every Christian doctrine. This basis is either explicit or implicit.

The issue of sola Scriptura really comes down to an issue of authority, not an issue of respect or honor given to the Scriptures. Christians must be clear that differences in views of Scriptural passages are the result of interpretation, not as a result of holding to the “word of God” vs. the “word of men”; for it was the Apostles’ interpretations of Old Testament Scripture that were the points of contention. The issue today is a matter of what *interpretation* one considers to be authoritative.

But, the author of the letter goes on to try to debunk something he says Catholic apologists state about Tradition:

Some Catholic apologists have argued that Saint Paul was speaking about an independent, parallel, unrecorded Gospel contained in an oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. The problem with this concept is that Paul tells us elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 ” The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed on to me, was that Christ, as the Scriptures foretold, died for our sins…That is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will; that is the faith that has come to you.”

When we look at the verses provided, however, it just doesn’t add up to the conclusion draw. St. Paul may have been teaching from the Scriptures (of course only the Old Testament, since the New Testament was being formed from the oral Apostolic Tradition), but it was a distinct and authoritative interpretation — call it a new and revolutionary interpretation, if you want.

Take the case of the Bereans in Acts. Often cited as an example of sola Scriptura, there is something to particularly take note of in the story — Paul gives an interpretation to these Jews that is authoritative. His interpretation (which was that of the other Apostles as well) was authoritative, and to be taken as the word of God. Notice how it’s pointed out that those at Thessaloniki “received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God ” [2 Thess 2:13]

And what about that “magic verse” in Timothy; Timothy was equipped by what he learned from Paul and the others, in conjunction with the Scriptures.[cf 2 Tim 3:14-16] And Timothy and Titus were to correct with all authority. [cf Titus 2:15] There is witness to Apostolic authority….whereby *their* teaching is to be considered authoritative, even upon proper interpretation of the Scriptures. At any rate, the point to get here is that the Apostles and presbyters taught people how to properly understand the Scriptures.

In Jewish times, only the synagogues had the scrolls of the OT Scriptures, and the people went there to learn about them. In the Apostolic age, the churches to whom the writings were addressed had the writings. Not until the 4th century were the writings authoritatively combined into a single volume, and not until the invention of the printing press was the Bible made more accessible than at your local church (it took years to hand copy the Scriptures in the early days; a decade or more to translate, and the cost, of both time and materials, was extravagant). The thing that we do find, though, is that the teachings of the Scriptures were consistent from century to century, from place to place….things written by those who were students of the Apostles, like Polycarp and Ignatius were of John.

But, what about the quotes from Augustine? They prove nothing because they are not taken in the context of Augustine’s fuller belief and profession:

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

This is Tradition. In fact, Scripture is the very pinnacle of Tradition. Both flow from the same Holy Spirit, Who cannot contradict.

We have not been left merely to fend for ourselves about what Scripture teaches, but have a consistent witness by which to see what was taught in every time, in order to check ourselves today; not from men who studied Scripture alone (and hopefully didn’t neglect something out in their studies), but instead from men who learned from the Apostles themselves and passed that knowledge on to others, from age to age right up to this very day.

With all this in mind, next we’ll take on the matter of Justification. Since that is a large section, it might take a few posts to adequately cover it.

[tags]catholic, doctrine, scripture, tradition, faith, anti catholic, protestant, bible, apostles, apologetics, church, rcia, sola scriptura, scripture alone[/tags]