Here's a worthy read: Ratzinger, Material Sufficiency?
Ratzinger:
And [Geiselmann] further concludes that consequently even a Catholic theologian can argue the material sufficiency of Scripture and can also, as a Catholic, hold the opinion that Holy Scripture transmits a material sola scriptura thoroughly acceptable even for a Catholic—indeed, he believes he can show that this has much the stronger tradition in its favor and that the Council of Trent, likewise, intended to point us in this direction.
The Romanist theologian does indeed argue this or that. For all their talk about certainty, when it comes right down to the essential nature of God's revelation, it all becomes a bit foggy in Romanism. Ironically, this ambiguity speaks loudly and clearly to how far the sect of Romanism has strayed from the truth, in that, it can't even consistently explain the nature of revelation. Depending on which Romanist one is in conversation with, one will get different explanations on the interaction of Tradition and Scripture, as well as the meaning of Tradition. If one thing is clear about Romanism's view of God's revelation, it's that it isn't clear.
Does Romanism, by and large, care? No, I don't think so. Even her most zealous self-appointed apologists have balked about doing in-person debates on the nature and meaning of Tradition. Sure, they've jumped all over sola scriptura over the years, but when Tradition is mentioned, they back away as fast as possible. This has happened time after time in Dr. White's debates with Roman apologists. It would be interesting to listen back to these debates as a whole, and isolate each Roman apologist's response and definition of Tradition. They can tear down that which they despise, but they can't (or won't) provide a meaningful explanation as to what their position is. They won't subject themselves to the same scrutiny that they go after sola scriptura with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Yes, the sound of crickets is deafening after you ask for the infallible list of Tradition.
It seems Romes defenders would rather steer clear of any examination of tradition and just pronounce from on high, hoping that the titles, declarations, theatrics along with the ancient sites, smells and sounds of the "One true church" will suffice for most.
"If one thing is clear about Romanism's view of God's revelation, it's that it isn't clear."
The Magisterium is not clear? I thought that's one of the premium benefits that comes from having the Catholic Magisterium.
And it stands in stark contrast to the teaching of Scripture, such as:
2Th 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2Th 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
Granted, I am not as learned of the recorded historical debates after the First Century up to this one now, as most commentors in here, but being more of a simpleton, one does not have to have a degree to see the culture that is captured with words such as those Scriptures, as well as others, make plain that in one place the tradition is for women wearing head dressings and men don't keep long hair, his writings to the Corinthian Churches.
But Rome, though she gathers together national mindsets from her archdioceses and their viewpoints and perspectives to the Magisterium and then feeds the compilations up to the, now, infallible Pope, a singular position, and former fallible participant in feeding up to that austere infallible and yet temporal post, wants us to believe in such narrow traditions all the while missing just how grand Our God's perspective is:
Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
Rev 5:10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."
Rev 5:11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,
Rev 5:12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!"
Rev 5:13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"
Traditions? Yep, He created a lot of them! Do they contribute to the material sufficiency "of" Scripture? Well, sorta, kinda, sometimes!
But, if you want to eat pork ribs for lunch in Fridays, well, just do it! OOOPs, or is it fish filets?
Sorry Charlie!
natamllc - All the Scripture you quoted proves nothing. Those verses have nothing to do withAs with every protestant I talk with, you attempt to fire off as much Scripture as you can to try and make a point, while actually only showing nothing more than an ability to memorize Bible verses. The Sacred Tradition everyone is slamming was the only reason you had the Gospel written. The Gospel was passed down orally. In fact, in that light, one does not need Scripture to be saved by Christ. By the way, Catholics do not believe any man to be infallible - including the Pope. He must practice the Sacrament of Reconciliation just like any other Catholic.
idealclosets writes:
The Sacred Tradition everyone is slamming was the only reason you had the Gospel written.
How would you make that argument? As it stands, you have concept of Sacred Tradition in mind and are assuming it is true and that its more recent infallible manifestations, such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, are part of the same, infallible body of material as the Scriptures. But how would you make that case?
The Gospel was passed down orally.
In some sense, perhaps. But we know that some parts of Scripture were written first, and, in any case, the letters of Paul (for example) themselves were copied and disseminated throughout the churches.
But even if it was as simple as you've described it, how does that defend your concept of Sacred Tradition being necessary to give us Scripture? How does that support your implication that to reject modern Sacred Tradition is to reject the means by which we have come to know the canon?
In fact, in that light, one does not need Scripture to be saved by Christ.
That's fascinating. Tell me, how you would witness to an atheist using Sacred Tradition without an appeal to Scripture? How would you present the truth of the Gospel to him using only Sacred Tradition?
By the way, Catholics do not believe any man to be infallible - including the Pope. He must practice the Sacrament of Reconciliation just like any other Catholic.
I don't think anyone here thinks the Pope is infallible in that sense. I am willing to bet the majority of Protestants who follow this blog are aware of the qualifications present in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (vis-à-vis ex cathedra statements).
The Gospel was passed down orally.,
I wish somebody had corrected the Apostle Paul before he caused all this confusion: ”Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 Cor. 4:6)
And Jesus, too! Six times in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus asks, “Have you not read…?” (Matt. 12:3, 12:5, 19:4, 21:16, 21:42, 22:31).
Don’t you wish the Creator of the universe would quit goofing around like that? How could He have missed the fact that it was the ORAL teaching that even made it possible for Him to know these things? I mean really. How obvious.
One toll free call to 800-CALL-BENEDICT and He could have gotten it right. What a pity He didn’t.
Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Closets.
Post a Comment