Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Partim-partim

My last post's combox contains almost nothing of relevance to the actual points made in the post. I guess I expected more from our Romanist interlocutors, but no matter. One off-topic assertion I'd like to deal with in a new post is this one:

Dozie (he/she of the anti-Semitic, race-baiting diatribe) said...
(Carrie) made the claim that the Catholic Church teaches some concoction of theology known as partin-partim (sic) and I am demanding that she produce the Catholic document where she found that. Now you (Rhology) come to obscure the facts because you think it is your duty to defend every silly statement made by a Protestant.

I repeat, where is the primary Catholic source that indicates the Catholic Church teaches partim-partim view of revelation? You either produce the document or you disqualify yourself from being able to discuss, with any level of integrity, Catholic issues.
First of all, yes, I defend EVERY statement made by a Protestant that Dozie thinks is silly. Every. Single. One.
Now that we have that out of the way, I thought I'd produce a few Romanist documents to that very effect. Carrie could probably find some other, much juicier ones, but these ought to do for now.

Just so you know, the claim is that Rome has never authoritatively pronounced to the effect that the Scripture is materially sufficient, that it contains, at minimum in nascent form, the foundation for all Roman dogma. The partim-partim view contends that the Scripture contains some of it and that some of it is found in Sacred Tradition, neither of the two having all of it.


"Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV [New York: Encyclopedia Press, Inc, 1913], p. 6, 2nd column).

Peter Stravinskas, S.J. - "(a study of the debates at the Council of Trent) will demonstrate that no single theory of divine Revelation dominated the catholic landscape prior to Trent and indeed that none really did afterwards, either. Granted, all the Catholic apologists were united in asserting that both Church and Scripture carried weight, but they were far from unanimous in explaining the relationship between the two" (Not By Scripture Alone, Robert Sungenis, editor).

Karl Keating - "It is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in the NT. They believe, though, that it ended with the death of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to writing - the part that is outside of the NT and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition - that part of revelation Catholics also accept, and in this they follow the apostle Paul's injunction..." (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 1988, p 151).

Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI - "...no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, "The Transmission of Divine Revelation", commenting on article 9 of Dei Verbum. Found in Vorgrimler, ed, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol 3, p 195).


35 comments:

Lvka said...

Hard to comment on this one

Well, I'll give it a shot anyway: remember Luther's stand on the whole [Jewish] deal? >:)

James Swan said...

Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner made the following comment in his book, Theological Investigations:

"We will not be able to doubt or dispute the fact that in post-Tridentine theology the main trend of thought has been to maintain, on the basis of an anti-Protestant front, that there is not only the truth of the inspiration and of the canon of scripture but that there are also other truths of faith which are not to be found in scripture, so that for them oral tradition is a materially distinct source of faith" [Source: Theological Investigations (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969), Vol. VI, 106-107].

griffwampatuba said...

From the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church (80-83):

"II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium."

Strangely enough (!), all the authority for these passages come from Dei Verbum by Pope Paul VI:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Do these count as "offical" Church documents?

Dozie said...

"Now that we have that out of the way, I thought I'd produce a few Romanist documents to that very effect."

You still don't know how to identity Catholic teaching documents.

"Carrie could probably find some other, much juicier ones, but these ought to do for now."

This is your admission that your post and your findings are very dry - dry of the facts you want to prove.

Carrie said...

Thanks Alan for dealing with this as I haven't had time. I'll add more quotes later.

For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.

Here is the ambiguity that Dozie doesn't seem to get.

The exact relationship b/w scripture and tradition remains undefined b/c Rome can't define it. The council of Trent had trouble determining what tradition actually was so they left the definition loose to accomodate competing ideas.

The quote from the CCC allows both a partim-partim and a material/formal sufficiency viewpoint. I challenge Dozie to find a church document that excludes partim-partim - he has done alot of squawking but has yet to produce one document to support his viewpoint.

BJ Buracker said...

From the looks of it - unless I misunderstand partim-partim - is that these quotes back up Rho's and Carrie's claims.

Lvka, if I'm wrong, how am I wrong? Surely you must admit that the CCC is an official Catholic document, do you not?

BJ

Rhology said...

BJ,

I'm not sure how Lvka would know that - he's not RC, he's EO (and a weird EO at that). Just FYI.

Dozie,
I'll wait for a substantive refutation. If the word of one RC theologian "doesn't necessarily speak for the whole church", how much less does the word of one individual disingenuous anonymous Internet RC layman?

griffwampatuba said...

Two questions:

Dozie -

The Catholic Catechism is not a "Catholic teaching docuemnt"?

Carrie - I'm a bit confused by your comments:

"82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'"

This "allows both a partim-partim and a material/formal sufficiency viewpoint" ? How? Yes, this section of the CCC can be used to demonstrated "material/formal sufficiency" on behalf of Scripture, but if so, at least the above quote demonstrates it equally for both Scripture and Tradition, and more importantly only when both are combined - I don't see how the RCC (or anyone) can claim "material/formal sufficiency" for the Scripture part but not for Tradition part - How does the assertion of their equal importance necessarily preclude their sharing the common attributes of God's Word, including "material/formal sufficiency"?

griffwampatuba said...

Carrie,

To clarify my concern - what I got from your quote ("The quote from the CCC allows both a partim-partim and a material/formal sufficiency viewpoint. I challenge Dozie to find a church document that excludes partim-partim") was the possibility that "partim-partim" would somehow be contrary to or undermined by successfully showing that the CCC's para. 82 supports "material/formal sufficiency" for the Scripture part. Are you saying that Dozie has a case against Partim-Partim if the RCC can demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that it believes in the "material/formal sufficiency" of the Scripture part of "partim-partim"? To my mind, I don't see how Scripture's being materially and formally sufficient does not a) apply to Tradition equally given the strong pairing the CCC gives them in 82, or b) even if only applied to Scripture, would somehow negate or undermine that clear pairing of both Tradition and Scripture.

Anyway, just a bit confused by your statement.

Lvka said...

Lvka, if I'm wrong, how am I wrong?

...and there You go again, B.J., asking all the *wrong* questions: such an approach will get You nowhere near the path to true enlightment...

Namaste! :D

Seriously, here's an entire blog of a doubting Catholic dedicated only to this sole question alone: the Roman Catholic understanding of the notion or concept of Church Tradition in the pre- and post-Newman era.

Stacey said...

Does anybody know if there is any distinction made between the revelations necessary for salvation and "other" revelations?

Thanks, all, I'm very ignorant on this point. Carrie, I do hope you put your post up when you get the chance.

kaycee said...

Stacey,

It appears that any "revelation" proclaimed by the RCC is necessary for salvation.

Vatican I

Vatican I states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, On Faith, Chapter III. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York:Harper, 1877), Volume II, pp. 244-245).

This point is further emphasiszed by the Roman Catholic theologian John Hardon in his authoritative and popular catechism:

44. What must a Catholic believe with divine faith?
A Catholic must believe with divine faith the whole of revelation, which is contained in the written word of God and in Sacred Tradition.

45. Can a person be a Catholic if he believes most, but not all, the teachings of revelation?
A person cannot be a Catholic if he rejects even a single teaching that he knows has been revealed by God.

46. What will happen to those who lack ‘the faith necessary for salvation’?
Those will not be saved who lack the necessary faith because of their own sinful neglect or conduct. As Christ declared, ‘He who does not believe will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16).

47. Why is divine faith called catholic?
Divine faith is called catholic or universal because a believer must accept everything God has revealed. He may not be selective about what he chooses to believe (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981).


http://www.christiantruth.com/rcdogmasandsavingfaith.html

BJ Buracker said...

Lvka,

Your comment made no sense to me whatsoever. Have Rhology and others provided official documents or not? If they have, these documents indicate that partim-partim is certainly permissible (at worst!). If my statements (or their quotes) are wrong, prove it. I suppose that goes for Dozie, as well.

BJ

Lvka said...

Lvka, Your comment made no sense to me whatsoever.

That's because the sense of things is what WE make OF them, not what THEY make TO us.

If my statements (or their quotes) are wrong, prove it.

Whether Your statements (or their quotes) are wrong (or not) is determined by their conformity to Rheality itself, and not by me or the supposedly infallible authority of my own pronouncements.

Stacey said...

Thanks, kaycee

Lvka said...

Roman Catholicism in a nut-shell:

youtube.com/watch?v=XouQmo7LmV8

Lvka said...

And here's a little something on the historical continuity of the Reformed and Protestant traditions. Enjoy!

David Waltz said...

You are completely ignoring the ‘other-side’ of this issue (as usual), and are taking quotes out of context (as usual)…

From my January 15, 2009 THREAD:


Evangelicals, of course, have generally followed the Reformation dictum of sola scriptura. The essence of this phrase has a long and interesting theological history and is, with nuances, accepted by many, if not most, contemporary Catholic theologians…

The conciliar decree is open to this interpretation [material sufficiency] inasmuch as Catholics believe that statements of ecumenical councils are providentially guided by the Holy Spirit. Yves Congar closes by noting that the proper way of summing up the relationship between Scripture and tradition as found in both the Fathers and the pre-Tridentine period is in the formula used by Newman and the nineteenth-century theologian, J. E. Kuhn: Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione.

While Congar and J. Geiselmann believe that Trent left the door open for the thesis of the material sufficiency of Scripture, Joseph Ratzinger stakes the same claim for the Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican II, Dei Verbum #9. This text is “…the product of the attempt to take into account, to the widest possible extent, the points made by the Reformed churches and [was] intended to keep the field open for a Catholic idea of sola scriptura…”[12] If these theologians are correct, and the majority of contemporary Catholic theologians surely agree with them, then Catholics, in their own way, could agree with the position that the entire truth of salvation is found in Scripture. (Thomas G. Guarino, “Catholic Reflections on Discerning the Truth of Sacred Scripture” in Your Word Is Truth, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, 2002, pp. 79 85, 86.)

[12] Joseph Ratzinger, “Commentary on Dei Verbum,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969) p. 192. Ratzinger notes here both his reservations and those of various Protestant commentators.


If we return to our text, we shall see that, following the stress on the unity of Scripture and tradition, an attempt is made to give a definition of the two entities. It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what it is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God. If this makes clear the nature of Scripture, we can see from the detailed characterization of tradition, whose task it is to “preserve (it), explain it, and make it more widely know”, that it is not productive, but “conservative”, ordained to serve as part of something already given.

The next part of the sentence quo fit … hauriat is the result of a modus suggested by 111 fathers. They wanted, with small variations, something like the following addition: quo fit ut non omnis doctrina catholica ex (sola) Scriptura (directe) probari queat. Clearly, the problem of the material completeness of Scripture once more crops up here, the problem that had caused fierce debate in the Council in its first and third sessions. When the question was treated in the Theological Commission on 6 October 1965, a dispute flared up. Mgr. Philips, its secretary, made a conciliatory proposal, which met with no success, so that finally the idea of any addition of this kind was rejected. On 18 October, the President of the Commission, Cardinal Ottaviani, was given a letter written by Cardinal Cicognani at the request of the Pope, which, apart from a few improvements Chapter III, also stated that it would be desirable (magus opportunum) to have an addition at this point. The letter included seven textual suggestions, on which the Secretary of State commented in his letter: “His enim formulis ii etiam assensum ac suffragium praestaturi esse censentur, qui in maiore Concilii parte pollent.” After careful deliberation the Council decided on the third of the suggested formulations, which was probably the work of C. Colombo. It now stands in the text. From an ecumenical point of there can be no objection to it. H. Ott says: “Moreover, it is surely also true for a Protestant who has not forgotten the basis of the Reformation that we do not acquire certainty about God’s revelation only from Holy Scripture, but also through preaching and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.” Actually, there would have been nothing to object to in the text of the 111 fathers, for no one is seriously able to maintain that there is proof in Scripture for every Catholic doctrine. The ecumenical difficulties of the text lie, as we have seen, in quite different points. Emotions had become attached to a point where they were completely superfluous. Furthermore, when one analyzes text calmly, it appears as a positive contribution towards the clarification of the problem of tradition. The function of tradition is seen here as a making certain of the truth, i.e. it belongs in the formal and gnoseological sphere—and, in fact, this is the sphere in which the significance of tradition is to be sought. (Joseph Ratzinger, “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II - New York: Crossroad, 1989, Vol. 3, pp. 194, 195.)


I would like, however, to try in the last part of our reflections to bring forward certain reasons for our not needing to accept – not even from a Catholic point of view – a constitutive material function of tradition which goes beyond the testimony of the nature of scripture; that we can say conversely, therefore, that it is entirely possible to formulate a Catholic sola scriptura principle with regard to the Church’s deposit of faith, provided that we understand this in a Catholic sense and therefore understand it to involve also an authoritative attestation and interpretation of holy scripture by the living word of the Church and her magisterium, and an attestation of scripture itself and its authoritative interpretation which cannot be replaced by scripture itself. (Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations - vol. 6, p. 107.)


…we can admit Scriptura sola in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians. The decree of the Council of Trent, they hold, does not prevent one’s still holding this position, for it merely affirms that the revealed truths and the principles of Christian living which are wholly contained in the Gospel are conveyed by the traditions and by Scripture. (Yves Congar, Tradition & Traditions, p. 410.)


With respect to the material sufficiency of the Bible, the ecumenical rapprochement is still more striking. Dei Verbum, departing from the preconciliar schema “On the Sources of Revelation,” refused to affirm that there are “two sources” or that some revealed truths are contained in tradition alone. Instead the Constitution accented the living and dynamic character of tradition as the process of handing on the word of God, which is indivisibly present both in Scripture and in tradition (DV 7-10). On the other hand, the Council refused to demote tradition to a merely secondary position, as though everything had to be tested by the Bible alone as the final rule of faith. “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 sense of devotion and reverence” (DV 9).

Just as Vatican II broke with the standard Catholic two-source theory, so the Montreal Conference on Faith and Order, meeting almost simultaneously, showed a disposition on the part of Protestants as well as Orthodox to assert the primacy and indispensability of tradition as against the “sola Scriptura” position. The report depicts the prophetic and apostolic writings as sedimentations of tradition, and holds that even after the Bible became complete, the gospel continued to be transmitted in living tradition by the power of the Holy Spirit. “Thus we can say that we exist as Christians by the Tradition of the Gospel (the paradosis of the kerygma) testified in Scripture, transmitted in and by the church through the power of the Holy Spirit.” While recognizing that Tradition (with a capital “T”) is the word of God, Montreal pointed out that the particular traditions of different churches may be inadequate and even distorted. As the criterion for genuine Tradition it proposed “the Holy Scriptures rightly interpreted.” The report left unsolved the question how the Bible can judge tradition if its right interpretation depends, in part, upon tradition. The suggestion would seem to be that there is no purely objective norm that can deliver the interpreter from the responsibility to be faithful to the Holy Spirit, whose voice is to be heard in Scripture and Tradition together. (Avery Dulles, “Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views”, Theology Today, April 1980, pp. 16-17.)

Carrie said...

Are you saying that Dozie has a case against Partim-Partim if the RCC can demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that it believes in the "material/formal sufficiency" of the Scripture part of "partim-partim"?

Griff,

I'm not sure I am following your questions.

My point was that I have not seen a Catholic document, including your quote of the catechism, that excludes partim-partim. Scripture and Tradition are always spoken of as linked together as the Word of God, but the breakdown of the content remains ambiguous.

Carrie said...

You are completely ignoring the ‘other-side’ of this issue (as usual), and are taking quotes out of context (as usual)…

David, I think you are missing the point.

We aren't denying that material/formal sufficiency isn't an allowable viewpoint, or even that it isn't a majority viewpoint, but we are asserting that the partim-partim still is a valid viewpoint within the RCC.

David Waltz said...

Hi Carrie,

Thanks for responding; you said:

>>David, I think you are missing the point.

We aren't denying that material/formal sufficiency isn't an allowable viewpoint, or even that it isn't a majority viewpoint, but we are asserting that the partim-partim still is a valid viewpoint within the RCC.>>

Me: If by "valid" you mean that the partim-partim view is allowed within the Catholic paradigm, then I agree.


Grace and peace,

David

Dozie said...

"My point was that I have not seen a Catholic document, including your quote of the catechism, that excludes partim-partim."


I have just got back from teaching class (6pm-10pm) and hope to have time to respond to the rigmaroles and the failed attempts to communicate.

Wintrowski said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rhology said...

Wintrowski,

if Sola Scriptura regards the Scriptures as formally sufficient, then why is the guidance of the Holy Spirit necessary?

B/c we are sinful people and the Scr is very deep.
If the words "formally sufficient" aren't good, let them fall by the wayside. Yet the Scr teaches that it is sufficient and understandable with the help and illumination of the Holy Spirit.


The Trinitarian doctrine, for example, can indeed be proved from Scripture, but the idea of three-in-one and one-in-three is not deducible.

Read White's "The Forgotten Trinity". Sure it is.


The idea of Scripture being formally sufficient would not have succeeded in averting the Arian heresy

If they had actually correctly understood Scr and submitted to it, it would have. Unless you think Scr teaches Arianism.
You're not really thinking this thru.



what importance does it have for the Reformed viewpoint if it is made clear that the Catholic Church does not have a definitive teaching on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition?

It has zero. Now you might be catching on. We don't bring this stuff up b/c it gives us jollies. We fully realise that people are people and people are sinful and inconsistent and factious by nature. But Rome claims INDIVISIBILITY, infallibility, unity, etc. We point the disunity out to break down that positive (and false) assertion. It's a negative argument against sthg you assert. Stop asserting it and there would be no more need for us to repeat the rebuttals.


I therefore welcome any insights.

Good, so I assume you concede the point, then.


perhaps you or someone out there can help me see the supposed difference between Trent and Vatican II?

Let T-fan defend his own statements; I don't know enough to say either way. My claim is more modest, and your citations have strengthened it, for my part.


hence the formal sufficiency of Scripture is out of the question

You mean the material sufficiency? I don't see how that says anything about the formal.


I also do not see the "partim partim" view expressly affirmed or rejected, nor do I see a "material sufficiency" view expressly affirmed or rejected

So we agree. Thank you.

Wintrowski said...

Rhology,

"If they had actually correctly understood Scr and submitted to it, it would have. Unless you think Scr teaches Arianism."

But isn't this is the problem? How are you supposed to know that you are "actually correctly understanding Scripture"? If you accept sola Scriptura and its formal sufficiency of the Scriptures, and if Scripture can be used to support Arianism, then by what means can you say Arianism is wrong?

"We don't bring this stuff up b/c it gives us jollies. We fully realise that people are people and people are sinful and inconsistent and factious by nature. But Rome claims INDIVISIBILITY, infallibility, unity, etc. We point the disunity out to break down that positive (and false) assertion. It's a negative argument against sthg you assert. Stop asserting it and there would be no more need for us to repeat the rebuttals."

What you say doesn't make sense in light of my quotes from Trent and Vatican II. Both councils affirmed the unity of Scripture and Tradition. I fail to see how that helps your case.

"You mean the material sufficiency? I don't see how that says anything about the formal."

No, I did indeed mean formal sufficiency. Are you sure you know what that term means? If both councils affirmed the unity of Scripture and Tradition, and Vatican II goes so far as to plainly state that the Catholic Faith cannot stand without both Scripture and Tradition, then how is the Reformist belief of the formal sufficiency of Scripture not excluded by definition?

Rhology said...

I don't know what purpose empty hypotheticals serve.

If you accept sola Scriptura and its formal sufficiency of the Scriptures, and if Scripture can be used to support Arianism, then by what means can you say Arianism is wrong?

If the Scr teaches Arianism, then Arianism is true.
I can also "use" the Scr to "support" the command to suicide.
"Then Judas went and hanged himself."
"Go thou and do likewise."
"What thou doest, do it quickly."


Both councils affirmed the unity of Scripture and Tradition.

Then Ratzinger is in disagreement. I'm not sure you want to go there.
Far better for you just to agree with my post, honestly.


Are you sure you know what that term means?

Perspicuity. Perhaps you could elucidate how that follows. I'm missing it.


If both councils affirmed the unity of Scripture and Tradition, and Vatican II goes so far as to plainly state that the Catholic Faith cannot stand without both Scripture and Tradition, then how is the Reformist belief of the formal sufficiency of Scripture not excluded by definition?

I don't get it. Where did I claim that formal suff was a position that Rome affirms with vigor?

Wintrowski said...

Rhology,

"If the Scr teaches Arianism, then Arianism is true."

The Arians thought it did. Are you saying they were right?

"Then Ratzinger is in disagreement."

In what way? If we look at the much longer quote posted by David Waltz, Ratzinger notes at the beginning how the unity of Scripture and Tradition was stressed.

"I don't get it. Where did I claim that formal suff was a position that Rome affirms with vigor?"

You claimed that you didn't see how the formal sufficiency of Scripture was excluded by definition from the conciliar quotes that I gave.

Rhology said...

The Arians thought it did. Are you saying they were right?

Sigh.
Above, you said:
The idea of Scripture being formally sufficient would not have succeeded in averting the Arian heresy
Then I said:
If they had actually correctly understood Scr and submitted to it, it would have. Unless you think Scr teaches Arianism.
You're not really thinking this thru.



you claimed that you didn't see how the formal sufficiency of Scripture was excluded by definition

Oh. What quote are you thinking of?

Lvka said...

Neither Arius nor his followers had any mental problems with finding innumerable Scriptural references to help support their views. Nor did they have any mental problems with interpreting the passages that the Orthodox thought contradicted Arianism to actually suit their heretical doctrine.

Rhology said...

Thing is, any appeal to tradition to fight Arianism in the 4th century would simply beg the question, for whose side is tradition on? Who gets to choose what is Big-T Tradition and what is not, what remains little-t tradition? Why, whoever wins the Arian controversy, of course!

No, Scripture is unchanging and is steadfast. Let God's inspired Word judge.

Lvka said...

Thing is, any appeal to Scripture to fight Arianism in the 4th century would simply beg the question, for whose side is Scripture on? Who gets to choose what is the right or correct Biblical interpretation, and what is not sound Scriptural exegesis? Why, whoever wins the Arian controversy, of course!

No, Scripture is unchanging and is steadfast. Let God's inspired Word judge.

Dozie said...

"Yet the Scr teaches that it is sufficient and understandable with the help and illumination of the Holy Spirit."

Do you have a reference for where the bible teaches what you claim it teaches? You seem to be very sure the bible teaches thus but I think you misuse the bible rather very carelessly. As a Sola Scriptura man, you ought to have greater respect for the bible than what you do here. Even with three or four passages sewed together, you will never get the bible to make the tortured statement you claim for it. While not a wrong statement per se; it is a statement manufactured to support a certain propaganda.

Now, the challenge is to produce the bible verse that teaches the key idea contained in your statement. You will not be able to, but hopefully you will learn to stop claiming for the bible what it does not teach. The same goes for the Church.

Rhology said...

Lvka,

Neither you nor I are atheists. We are both supposed to agree that God's Word is eternal and unchanging, so your statement cuts your own position's throat just as much as you think it does mine.

kaycee said...

Did Paul expect the Church at Rome to understand the epistle written to them or did they have to wait for a magesterium rep with the unwritten oral tradition to decode it for them?

Lvka said...

Rho,

I don't have problems with either Scripture or Tradition.

Kaycee,

the Church of the Romans was founded and nurtured by Paul. He didn't just send them an e-mail one day out of the blue, and let them democratically read into it whatever they wanted to see there.