St. Thomas and Sola Scriptura
#11
(06-25-2012, 11:32 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Scripture does not point to tradition as another source of dogma. All the traditions that the Apostles urged to be kept (2 Thess. 2:14) are nothing else than the Apostolic teaching that was later written down and perpetuated to the end of time in Scripture. Irenaeus plainly states it: "The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith." (Against Heresies 3,1) There's no other source out there. And the fact is, not even Rome can really point out what dogmas are contained in Tradition today that must be believed. It's just something that is made up as time goes along. They can always point to Tradition for justification of their new dogmas and if there are voices against them in the historical record, they can always dismiss them as "non-infallible." It's a sure method for endless spiritual tyranny.

St. Thomas is just building upon the ancient practice of the Church that considered Scripture as the only or perhaps the final authority to decide matters of faith. The Church Fathers did the same thing in their writings. The principle of sola scriptura was not devised in the 16th century, no matter what common apologetics like to tell you.

I would appreciate it if you would not derail my thread.

I am trying to figure out if and how it's possible to reconcile St. Thomas with the two-font conception of divine revelation proposed by Vatican I.
Reply
#12
(06-25-2012, 05:33 AM)Vincentius Wrote: INPEFESS explains it very clearly.   The Deposit of Faith consists the Holy Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church). 

The deposit of faith consists of Scripture and Tradition alone. The magisterium is the necessary interpreter of the deposit of faith, not the deposit itself, which ceased to be added to after the apostolic era.
Reply
#13
Vetus the concept of the Chair of Moses comes from the Mishna, the oral traditions of the jews. If sola scriptura is true then Christ would have given no credence to the concept.  And in Matt 2:23 St. Matthew says that Christ will be called "the Nazarene" so that the words of the prophets might be fulfilled. Yet no where in the old testament is there mention of The Messiah being called the Nazarene. Here we see Matthew mentioning messianic prophesies not contained in scripture. Thus this prophesy must have been passed down orally. Really, sola scriptura has nothing to stand on. Its not even mentioned in scripture for crying out loud!
Reply
#14
In Dei Filius (not Pastor aeternus, as I incorrectly mentioned above), Vatican I explained the contents of divine revelation and its relationship with the Church's teaching authority.

"Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur."--"By the divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God, written [i.e., in Scripture] or handed-down [i.e., in Tradition], and are set forth by the Church (whether by a solemn judgment or by its ordinary and universal teaching authority) to be believed as divinely revealed" (D 1792).  

According to this, the word of God (i.e., public divine revelation) is contained in two sources, Scripture and Tradition; the Church, through its teaching power, is able to state definitively what this word of God--contained as it is in Scripture and Tradition--means.
Reply
#15
(06-25-2012, 12:33 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 12:17 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Vetus, by saying that the Church is engaging in spiritual tyranny you are violating the forum rules regarding non-trads participating here. It's gravely insulting to us. I suggest you avoid such statements in the future. And if you're so insistent on Sola Scriptura you're going to have to explain how the Chair of Moses doesn't violate that. Last I checked it's not once mentioned in any of the Old Testament, yet Our Lord's statement that the pharisees derive their authority from it implies that it was an authoritative part of Temple theology.

Did those sitting in the chair of Moses enjoy infallibility in matters of faith and morals? No. Did those sitting in the chair of Moses have access to sources of dogma apart from the Scriptures? No. In fact, those who enslaved the people with their traditions, like the Pharisees, were condemned by Christ as making void the word of God.

People use scriptures to defend all sorts of positions which are mutually exclusive. Scripture itself is meaningless without being understood properly. Give me any statement, and I will get a Bible verse to support it.

The Church is not a human institution, that renders your criticism void.
Reply
#16
Ressurexi -- you may want to look at the Latin of the passage from St. Thomas you quote -- the English translation used on New Advent seems to be considerably more absolutist than the Latin:

"Respondeo dicendum quod aliqui circa hoc diversimode opinantur. Quidam enim dicunt quod, etiam si homo non peccasset, Dei filius fuisset incarnatus. Alii vero contrarium asserunt. Quorum assertioni magis assentiendum videtur. Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate proveniunt, supra omne debitum creaturae, nobis innotescere non possunt nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde, cum in sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur incarnationis opus ordinatum esse a Deo in remedium peccati, ita quod, peccato non existente, incarnatio non fuisset. Quamvis potentia Dei ad hoc non limitetur, potuisset enim, etiam peccato non existente, Deus incarnari."

There is perhaps a better Latinist here, that can give a more accurate translation, but if I were going to translate that, I don't think I would translate "nisi quatenus" as "only," but rather "except inso far as." so "can be known only" becomes "cannot be known except in as far as..."
Reply
#17
(06-25-2012, 01:14 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Vetus the concept of the Chair of Moses comes from the Mishna, the oral traditions of the jews. If sola scriptura is true then Christ would have given no credence to the concept.

Christ's words simply mean that we ought to listen to whatever we are truly taught from the word of God, even by wicked teachers, but in a way so that we abstain from their evil behaviour. This doesn't mean that the authority given to those who expound the scriptures, both in the Jewish and Christian Church, also invests them with infalliblity and knowledge of other sources of dogma apart from the Scriptures themselves.

Quote:And in Matt 2:23 St. Matthew says that Christ will be called "the Nazarene" so that the words of the prophets might be fulfilled. Yet no where in the old testament is there mention of The Messiah being called the Nazarene. Here we see Matthew mentioning messianic prophesies not contained in scripture. Thus this prophesy must have been passed down orally.

"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets." Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies. No Old Testament prophet declared in express terms that He should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived; the Nazarites, of whom Samson was one, were typical of Christ; the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who was despised and rejected.
Reply
#18
Vetus you're still not getting it. The very concept of the Chair itself is not found in scripture. It is found in the oral tradition of the jews. Our Lord references something as authoritative that is not contained in the Old Testament. The very doctrind of the Chair is extra-biblical, yet Our Lord accepts it as true. This isn't about whether the Chair is infallible. It's about the fact that Our Lord accepted as authoritative something that is not contained in Scripture. Our Lord Himself contradicts your notion of sola scriptura.
Reply
#19
Time off for Vetus (2 weeks). Figure out if you want to post here within the rules or try to convert people to Protestantism.
Reply
#20
(06-25-2012, 02:07 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Time off for Vetus (2 weeks). Figure out if you want to post here within the rules or try to convert people to Protestantism.

Thank you Vox. Hopefully Vetus will use these next two weeks benificially. I hope to see him again, he is fun to debate with, when he doesn't resort to sarcasm or insults.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)