Scripture and Tradition? Where does Tradition stand?

Loutzenhiser's picture

We will continue the 2 Tim and 1 Thess here. I will bring the last posts from each thread here.

Let me define the thread subject here. We all agree that Scripture is foundational to the church, but where does tradition stand and what tradition.

Some questions -

Is a tradition considered to be apostolical even though it is announced and defined at a later date?

Must a tradition have some other supporting evidence or is the church's "word" good enough for it to be considered canonical?

Is Dogma tradition or just a church's view?

What support must a tradition have to be canonical? (such as multi-church support?)

Are views and teachings about a tradition also tradition or just a church's opinion?

De Maria's picture

Again, whom are you addressing.

"We've always thought this, but only now do we need to declare these thoughts." That seems like a handy rhetorical maneuver,

Are you quoting something one of us actually said, or are you offering a straw man which you can knock down?

Because, it is true that we always believed these doctrines, but only recently were they officially defined (as opposed to declared, which smacks of innovation).

Why? Simple. Why fix that which isn't broken? During past centuries, the doctrines of Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption were not seriously threatened. But, in the wake of the Protestant Revolution many Catholic doctrines were seriously threatened. The Church responded to many of those threats by declaring them errors worthy of anathemas in ecumenical council, (Trent) and to these by officially defining them for posterity.

but not like a sincere assessment of the past.

We are quite sincere. Simply because you disagree with us is no reason to accuse us of insincerity.

Papal infallibility was not always believed (2 popes, right?

Wrong. It was always believed.

Avignon and Rome, was it?), though Papal authority was nearly invincible. Oddly enough, the decree was not made until the world around the Church started rejecting Church authority altogether, and instead of handling the changing paradigms with care and thought, the pope built up the walls of the Vatican and declared himself (through councils) to be absolutely right about all matters of Faith and.... well, to say that "We always thought that," seems about as revisionist as, "Well, the founding Father's weren't racist." Evidence to the contrary is painted all over history, even if that evidence mars our pristine view of our nation and sabotages the PC authority of our government.

The history of the Church shows that the Pope was always considered infallible. We can trace this outside of Scripture to the Letter of Clement:

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

But it is beside the point. I assume, since my posts have disappeared and my thread locked, that this thread is a continuation of my efforts to find Sola Scriptura in Scripture. But you seem to have turned this into a study of your version of history. Not what I had in mind. Anyway, to get back to the original intent of my threads:

I can search Scripture and see that Jesus gave Simon the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose. That sounds very much like infallibility.

Now, since I assume you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, are you telling me that I should believe you and your version of history over and above the Word of God?

If so, does that mean that you have also abandoned Sola Scriptura?




Advertisements