Dozie (he/she of the anti-Semitic, race-baiting diatribe) said...First of all, yes, I defend EVERY statement made by a Protestant that Dozie thinks is silly. Every. Single. One.
(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.
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).
Posts
35 comments:
Hard to comment on this one
Well, I'll give it a shot anyway: remember Luther's stand on the whole [Jewish] deal? >:)
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].
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?
"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.
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.
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
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?
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"?
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, 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.
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.
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
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, 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.
Thanks, kaycee
Roman Catholicism in a nut-shell:
youtube.com/watch?v=XouQmo7LmV8
And here's a little something on the historical continuity of the Reformed and Protestant traditions. Enjoy!
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.)
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.
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.
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
"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.
Rhology,
I looked up your last quote from Ratzinger, and was interested to see the following written directly preceding 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.”"
This quote provokes some thoughts about any claims made by Protestants that Scripture is formally sufficient. One important question that springs to mind: if Sola Scriptura regards the Scriptures as formally sufficient, then why is the guidance of the Holy Spirit necessary?
However, it would seem, from a common-sense point of view, that Scripture can only ever be at most materially sufficient. 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. The idea of Scripture being formally sufficient would not have succeeded in averting the Arian heresy, as Dave Armstrong makes clear here. Another example, as mentioned in this article by James Akin, would be the belief that Christ had two wills, a human will and a Divine will -- that can be inferred from Scripture, but Scripture does not clearly state it. Akin's article gives the Catholic position a good summary.
So, I suppose I'm kind of wondering why you originally posted on this topic? If the formal sufficiency of Scripture asserted by Sola Scriptura is arguably non-existent, then 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?
Anyway, on to your claims that the Catholic Church has "never authoritatively pronounced to the effect that the Scripture is materially sufficient", and that there is more evidence to suggest that the so-called "partim partim" position is more authoritative in the Church. I want to start out by admitting that I am by no means an expert on this rather intricate and subtle theological issue, and I therefore welcome any insights.
I've seen some references being made to the Council of Trent in the context of this issue. For instance, Mr. Turretinfan claims that he thinks "[t]here is a good argument to be made that only partim-partim is a valid position in Catholicism, in view of Trent". Elsewhere on the interweb, others assert a paradigm shift between Trent and Vatican II with regard to the position of Tradition in relation to Scripture. I was curious about this, so I thought others might benefit from reading the primary sources.
Here's what Trent actually has to say (emphasis added):
"The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession." [ Fourth Session, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures ]
Throughout the Canons of Trent, it's interesting to note the language employed in different places (emphasis added):
"And because that many errors are at this time disseminated and many things are taught and maintained by divers persons, in opposition to this ancient faith, which is based on the sacred Gospel, the traditions of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers..." [ Session 22, Chapter IX ]
"And the sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour..." [ Session 23, Chapter I ]
"Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that..." [ Chapter III, Session 23 ]
"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod,..." [ Session 25 ]
Now, let's turn our attention to the Second Vatican Council (emphasis added):
"9. 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, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it 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 sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." [ Dei Verbum, Chapter II ]
So, perhaps you or someone out there can help me see the supposed difference between Trent and Vatican II? To me, both seem to be asserting an organic unity between Scripture and Tradition (i.e., "Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione, perhaps), implying (and stating, in the case of Vatican II) that the Catholic Faith would be non-existent without both, hence the formal sufficiency of Scripture is out of the question. 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 -- it would seem to be as Carrie has stated, that either view could be held and argued because the debate is still open.
Mr. Turretinfan, I would certainly like to hear this good argument of yours that only "partim partim" is an acceptable position in Catholicism in view of Trent because I do not see any language in Trent which would indicate that Catholics must believe Scripture to be material insufficient.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
Post a Comment