Everytime I discuss spirituality with protestants, mailnly pentecostals, our discussion stumbled by their insistent referance to Scripture. Whenever I mention saints or Mary and Church's traditional teaching they refute it automatically by refering "everything outside Scrpiture is false". We know this is Luther's teaching. What surprised me is some of them doesn't know that their argument has root in the teaching of Luther. Eventhough we share many commonality their insistence on Scripture always tend to cut our frutiful discission abruptly. So, I suggest to discuss this issue on this thread. To begin with I refer you the following website:
http://www.catholic.com/librar...re_and_Tradition.asp

I know Phil has written a book on this issue but I didn't read it. I'm sure his comment will enrich this discussion a lot.

that's interesting, Grace. The next question to ask is where did Luther get his teachings from?
Augustine? Do Catholics accept Augustine? Yes. Where do Catholics and Protestants diverge in regards to Augustine's thought? I love tracing things back like this...but I don't even know if Luther's thought is grounded in Augustine. Ignatius was also influential to Lutherean thought. He is also accepted by Catholics.

From my readings of the Protestant Reformation, it seems that much of the schisms between the two groups can be tackled by reading the history of the Church of England...I studied a few documents that align a lot of this schism with language and politics. Think of Defoe, Swift, or the author of Vindex Anglicus linking up Protestant theology with a "pure language;" ridding the language of "inkhorn" terms, borrowings etc. Defoe, for instance, would connect these forign borrowings to Catholic "idoltry." I know that's one angle of it...

The main difference is of course transsubstantiation. But I wonder if that difference could be traced back to Augustines emphasis on sin...

Once you can trace the thought back; you can ask your theologian friends to consider the precursors of Luther where there may be some common ground.

That's as good a link as any -- the one posted by Grace. It acknowledges the existence of an oral tradition that gave rise to but was not exhausted by the written tradition we call the New Testament. Furthermore, it includes the ongoing reflection and discernment of those ancient teachings, including those of the New Testament. In Catholic understanding, Scripture, Tradition and Teaching Authority go together; to pull any apart from the rest is to lose the proper balance.

Most Protestants, including Luther (and Lutherans) respect and acknowledege the validity of most Catholic teachings derived from Scripture. The groups most resistant and even defiant are those that go with Scripture only -- like Biblical Fundamentalists and some evangelical groups. The Scripture-only approach is untenable, however, for many reasons, none the least of which is that it assumes the New Testament to be a comprehensive summary of Christian teaching in the first century and for all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gutenberg

The single most important event of modern history, with the possible exception of the computer, launched the movement that now runs 540 million strong.

Not to worry, though, as I am 10x17th power certain that there IS A PROBABLE BASIS 4 UNITY!!!

http://www.hopeofisrael.net/probability.htm

An interesting synchronicity, much like the David Hawkins devotee I ran into in the grocery store after not seeing for the last year, was picking up this movie yesterday:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt309820/

I was pleasantly surprised and deeply moved!

The key to all of this is fallibility. If you accept the infallibility of the Catholic Church then this authorizes tradition and oral teaching. If you reject the CC's infallibilty, then you're basically left with the authority of scripture alone.

Evidently some of the CC's practises over the years have been questionable to say the least. Luther protested against things like indulgences, where the poor were basically forced to pay for remission of sins. He had a point. His insistance on salvation by grace through faith alone was borne of a desire to strip away the corruption prevalent in the Church which, for him, negated tradition, and get to the foundation of the Gospel which was most evident in scripture. Either he threw out the baby with the bath water or he exposed tradition as inherently flawed. Whatever he did, he certainly brought to light the fallibilty and corruption of the CC at the time and weakened its claim to authority over any issue not bolstered by scripture.

Another key element is the Holy Spirit's inspiration. Scripture and tradition alone are of no use unless the Spirit of God is present. It's quite clear to me that there are teachers outside the Catholic Church who are filled with the Holy Spirit and breathe life into scripture. There are probably teachers in the CC who breathe life into tradition. On the other hand there is no life in scripture or tradition without the Holy Spirit.

We know from scripture, however, that all apostolic teaching wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit. Peter himself was confused as to the issue of circumcision. This puts a big question in my mind about the oral tradition. How can I be sure it isn't an invention of the apostles, a teaching based on their error. Look at John in Revelation 22:8,9 wanting to worship the angel and being clearly rebuked for it. These great men didn't always get it right, so how can I be sure that the oral tradition wasn't inspired by one of there mistakes. Is there not a danger of giving the apostles and the Church more credence than they deserve?

At the end of the day it's about faith. Do you believe the Holy Spirit inspired the body of men assigned to collect Holy Scripture? Do you believe tradition is Spirit inspired?

The Scripture-only approach is untenable, however, for many reasons, none the least of which is that it assumes the New Testament to be a comprehensive summary of Christian teaching in the first century and for all time.

Yes Phil, this is my understanding as well. Stephen pointed out one important point when he said "Scripture and tradition alone are of no use unless the Spirit of God is present." My understanding of this issue, like other spiritual matter, stems from the direct experience of Holy Spirit. This understanding mostly resonate with the teaching of Catholicism. As far as I know Catholic Church acknowledge ones direct experience of God. The problem with those people I talk is they don't recognize ones direct experience of God. This approach led them to totally underestimate the mystical experiences exhibted in our Saints. Their excessive focus on Scripture-only dogma hinders them to see the beauty of Christian mysticism. Here I'm not talking about all protestants.

From what I can see, Phil, the scripture only approach is best described as a "basis" for all Christian teaching, rather than a summary, and that new truths can quite easily be pulled from an old book.

Also, I see personal mystical experience of God as being very much promoted in scripture but, playing the devil's advocate here, that that mystical experience can only be properly authenticated by scripture. To my mind it is best authenticted not so much by tradition anyway(I don't get round much to reading St.J of the C or Teresa of Av) but by scripture and the presence of the Holy Spirit in one's life.

"If you reject the CC's infallibilty, then you're basically left with the authority of scripture alone."

Stephen:

I think that pulls up a bit short on how the CC defines itself, especially seeing as how Scripture, as a canon, is a reflection of an ongoing tradition.

Great points!

The basis of unity for all Christian centers around the Nicene Creed, which has been coming under attack
from the new "reformers," and popular literature such as The DaVinci Code:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11048a.htm

I have become confused at times when getting deep into Eastern mysticism, and ask myself, "Am I still a Christian?" Then I go back to the Nicene Creed and can remember saying it as a child in church, and the child remembers and reminds me.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

The CC isn't the only Christian body that recognizes the importance of Sacred Tradition, fwiw. The Anglicans, for example, recognize the prominence of Scripture, tradition and reason.

Even fundamentalists show evidence in their own way of a need for tradition as they "interpret" what they "believe" Scripture to be saying. So you take something like the Lord's Supper; what's really going on, there? You can look to Scripture, but it was the further elaboration of reflection, prayer and dialogue that brought forth the doctrine of the Real Presence, which predominated until Reformers went back to Scripture only and began their own tradition of interpretation.

Re. indulgences, etc., it's helpful to distinguish between church practices and policies and formal doctrines. There is tradition and Tradition, the latter referring to teaching that supports official doctrinal positions. Also, when speaking of the teaching authority, the understanding is that they are accountable to Tradition and Scripture, and so they can't just start a new doctrine.

I don't quite know what you mean, w.c.

Granted scripture can be said to have started, even continued and "freshened-up", certain traditions, but these would be distinct from a tradition that is purely oral and, under the auspices of the Holy Spirit, would take on the living quality that tradition needs to flourish. And, believe me, I'm not underestimating the CC's attachment to scripture.

I take both points you make, Phil. There has to be prayer, discourse, reasoning etc. And it's necessary to accept some "tradition of interpretation", but this in itself, has to be distinguished from formal doctrines based on Tradition.

Luther's position, therefore, may suggest that any "tradition of intepretation" is sound if it's based on a reasoning and discourse inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the corruption in the "traditions" of the CC undermined its authority to establish and promote doctrine based on "Tradition".

My beef with fundamentalism isn't necessarily the scripture only approach but the treatment of scripture in fundamentalist hands, where the Book oft times becomes dry, lifeless, stagnant, not the moving living growing organism it should be, without losing that unchanging spirit of revelation.

Another contention of Luther's was of course that the Traditions of the Church ran contrary to that revelation, specifically that pertaining to salvation - surely it's pretty important that we get that right! So what is it, says Herr Luther, scripture or Tradition?

Stephen, I'm wondering what specific Traditions of the Church Luther (or you) think is in conflict with Scripture (assuming, here, that Scripture can "speak for itself," which is highly dubious, imo)? Maybe it would help to note that Catholics and Lutherans have recently ironed out whatever differences they had and seem to be mostly in agreement on the matter of salvation. It seems that both sides did their fair share of mischaracterizing the other's position.

But back to heart of the topic, scripture and tradition, and the necessity of an authentic teaching authority to properly articulate and discern the leading of the Spirit. The Christianity that's come down through the ages, including its Scriptures, is a product of Apostolic Christianity. Indeed, one of the criteria for considering an early writing worthy of the canon of Scripture was its tie to an Apostle (the other two being that it was composed before the death of John the Evangelist, and that the community made use of the writings in its teaching and liturgy). So there's no separating Scripture from the Apostolic authority which authenticated it, nor the Tradition from which that authority interpreted certain aspects of Scripture that weren't fully articulated and explained (e.g., the presence of Christ in the Eucharist). Once that tie is severed and people think they can just go on what they believe the "Holy Spirit" is telling them about meaning, you find a splintering of Christianity -- such as we have witnessed since the Reformation. The reason for this is not the ignorance of Scripture, but the rejection of the charisms of authority and Tradition that help to explain Scripture in an ever-changing world.

Paul recognized the pre-eminence of Apostolic authority:

quote:

In the Church, God has given the first place to apostles, the second to prophets, the third to teachers . . . (1 Cor. 12: 28)

It was Apostolic leadership that steered Christianity away from the errors of the gnostics in the first generation; the bishops, their successors have confronted a wide range of heresies through the centuries. Once this dynamic relationship between Teaching Authority, Scripture and Tradition is broken, then the Christian community becomes divided, as preachers and reformers, believing themselves to have the Spirit's guidance, launch out in new directions, all claiming to be the "true Church of Christ."

So it all boils down, in the end, to whether one believes Christ intended for his work to continue through the Church, and, if so, if it was his intention that there be a charism of authority and teaching invested in the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops. Scripture and Tradition cannot be understood nor even accounted for outside of this context, and it simply doesn't follow that at some point in history this threefold dynamic ceased to be relevant because Luther came along with a list of legitimate grievances.

"Stephen, I'm wondering what specific Traditions of the Church Luther (or you) think is in conflict with Scripture (assuming, here, that Scripture can "speak for itself," which is highly dubious, imo)?"

I don't know if I'd like to say .

Hey, listen, I hope you realise that I'm coming at all this quite openly, despite my Protestant background, and am trying to work out some of the objections to Catholicism that I've inherited. Which is why I'm glad you're there Phil. Which is also why I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. Which is also why my thinly veiled disguise didn't work. Which is also why I'll continue to raise one or two objections, if you don't mind, in the hope that the discussion will be enlivened, and that you'll be patient with this sole (outspoken) representative of Protestantism (and not a very worthy representative at that).

You say there's no separating Scripture from Apostolic authority. I agree with that. Then you say "nor the Tradition". I don't see how that necessarily follows, especially if some of the Tradition was established after the death of the Apostles(and I take it a lot of it was, not being a scholar of the early church by any manner of means), when things would, quite naturally, lose some of that Apostolic fire. To me there is a natural weakening of authority over time unless the Holy Spirit manifestly breathes in more fire through revival.

I also take your point on the splintering of Christianity. But who's to say that the Holy Spirit isn't giving clear new meaning outside the Teaching Authority, or refreshing any old interpretation that has become stagnant or been surplanted in some way, other than that Teaching Authority? And if that new insight is accompanied by an outburst of spiritual fruit and gift, what is one to think of a Teaching Authority that rejects that new insight? The logical conclusion is that any new group which arises based on a different interpretation of scripture than that held by the Teaching Authority, can't be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that only those under the TA can. Yet quite clearly certain non-Catholic groups have manifested a multitude of charisms of the Holy Spirit while extoling interpretations that ran contrary to the TA (the Wesleyans, the early Brethern Movement, even individuals, who you blame for the splintering the Church, such as Spurgeon, who brought thousands of souls to God).

Stephen, as you know from other discussions, I concede that Christ and the Holy Spirit are working not only outside of Catholicism, but outside of Christendom. It doesn't follow, however, that there aren't advantages to being a Christian who has a personal relationship with Christ, baptism in the Spirit, etc. I'd draw the same analogy concerning the advantages of being part of the mystical body that is informed by teaching in the apostolic lineage. That doesn't mean there aren't good teachers outside, or course, nor does it follow that some bishops and even popes haven't been the holiest of characters.

When we speak of a development of Tradition following the death of the Apostles, we aren't saying that we've added new revelations or anything like that. Most of it is elaboration on the Scriptures and the oral traditions already recognized during the time of the Apostles. A lot of it is doctrinal material responding to heresies, for example, or clarifications of points concerning some aspect of doctrine or practice.

You and others might be interested in reading #74-98 in the Catholic Catechism. It's pretty short, and covers most of what we've been talking about.

Hey, listen, I hope you realise that I'm coming at all this quite openly, despite my Protestant background, and am trying to work out some of the objections to Catholicism that I've inherited. Which is why I'm glad you're there Phil. . .

Happy to oblige . . . And my guess is that the questions you're asking are shared by many who visit these forums.

I'm following this interesting discussion between Phil and Stephen.

It is clear that there is differences between the adherents of Tradition and Scripture on the one hand and Scripture only on the other hand. Nevertheless, Chirstians have very crucial commonalities. Believing in the salvation of Jesus Christ is a very crucial point needs to be emphasised both by Catholics and Protestants. The differencies per se is not problematic. The problem arises when one group proclaim itself as the champion of Truth. Unity in diversity is the only way out we have. We have differecies but above all we are united through Christ.

Phil, the link you are provided on the agreement between Lutherans and Catholics is a good example on how we can achieve unity in diversity and this kind of dialogue must be encouraged and supported.

Don't know what's happened to Stephen . . . not much else I have to say on this topic, however.

Good topic, Grace. Unfortunately, we've (Christians through the centuries) made all this a lot more complicated than it's supposed to be, I think. That's due, in part, to our living in a world where the faith is challenged in many ways from outside the Church and even from within, at times. Responding to some of the distortions has been necessary, at times, and the Church needed to come to clarity concerning how this was to happen.

Hey, Stephen's here, Stephen's here - nursing some head stewing virus at the moment .

I'd be interested to know where certain practises which aren't so clear in scripture (at least to my understanding), spring from.

From a Protestant perspective, there's an argument which says veneration for the Virgin, for example, was instituted when Christianity was taken to the pagan North, as a way of easing the tribes out of goddess worship and into the new faith. I don't know about the truth of this.

Then I got round to thinking of John the Evangelist this morning, and how Jesus entrusted His mother to John's care while He was on the cross. I read 3 John, where John writes to Gaius and refers to him as one of his (John's) "children". I thought that was quite lovely and got to thinking about the pastorship of the Apostles and how various Traditions could quite easily have arisen from those individual ministries. Quite conceivable then that veneration of Mary could have sprung from John's care of the Virgin and his subsequent ministry to the saints. This doesn't make Tradition right or wrong, however, just something that has grown up organically.

Still, I can't help feeling that doctrine and practise can only really be authenticated by a parallel movement of the Spirit, where spiritual fruit is manifested in abundance, lessening the need for any formal Teaching Authority (although I acknowledge the need for authority, perhaps it is the formality and apparent rigidity of structure and appointment that leave me cold. The Holy Spirit's power is so alive, so fluid and organic, whereas the handing down of bishopric's etc seems to have become so stuffy and formulaic. This is apparent in the Protestant tradition as much as the Catholic). What was it, for example, that gave authority to Paul's teachings, and how did it prevail in the confusion of early church after Christ's ascension - strength of personality, spiritual fruit? It certainly wasn't any attachment to a particular body as, if anything, Paul was the outsider amongst the elders. To me his teaching had a undisputed ring of spiritual power and authenticity, and it's that elusive quality which I look for in a teacher, rather than authentication from any particular body, and which, then and now strikes a chord with the Spirit's gift of discernment.

For my part, issues which divide the two camps are given too much focus. Why should I worry if one man does or doesn't believe in Real Presence. As long as there are certain fundamentals which are shared by all (the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection etc. all of which are pretty clear to anyone's understanding from Scripture) then this is enough basis for unity. And it's also that clarity in Scripture, something we shouldn't underestimate in our attempts to work out doctrine, that stands as the true foundation of all the Faith.

I'm glad you're still here, Stephen. Hope you are feeling well soon.

I'm enjoying and learning much from this discussion. I feel somewhat like I'm finding pieces to a puzzle.

As I mentioned on another thread, I grew up in a cultish and heretical religious organization (Worldwide Church of God) started by a man, Herbert W. Armstrong, who had a few spiritual experiences and suddenly thought he was inspired to start God's true church in the latter days. He even eventually came to believe that he was an apostle. You can reference some of what he taught on this site, along with his son, Garner Ted Armstrong: http://www.ondoctrine.com/01organi.htm

It seems without accountability to the Tradition of the church, anyone can feel inspired and start another sect. OTOH, I watched the movie, Luther, and understood his actions. It seems there are no easy answers. I'm learning to hold confusion, mine and others, gently in my heart.

I figure movies is not my best source of history though. So I'm very interested in the history of Christianity; If anyone would like to recommend some books, I'd appreciate it.

For now, because of so much spiritual abuse, I'm most comfortable in 12-step spirituality. But as I continue practicing Lectio Divina and simple prayer of a child to her Father, I am brought closer to Catholic teachings. Of late, during prayer, I have been aware of Mary. I even felt compelled to find and learn to recite Hail Mary prayer. This is comforting to my soul.

I also would like to share the forgiveness in my heart for Mr. Armstrong. Since I have had some distance from this church for quite some time, I have been able to read about his life with some detachment. I read that some think he may have been suffering from psychosis. Because I too have suffered from mental illness, I now look at him and say, "But for the grace of God, go I".

With Gratitude,
Tate

Stephen, I'll acknowledge that veneration for Mary is not in the Bible, but it doesn't really "go against" anything in the Bible either, does it? For that matter, reading the New Testament is not in the NT.

Re. Paul, it seems he was accepted as an Apostle, and certainly considers himself such. Luke's writings are considered canonical, in part, because of his connection with Paul. As you know, even Peter regards some of Paul's writings as on the level of Scripture. So it's apparent that even among the other Apostles, he was accepted and deeply respected -- not exactly an "outsider."

Somehow we're not connecting in this discussion about the charism of teaching entrusted to the Apostles. I'll grant you that their successors can and often have been more on the worldly side, but the way I've been referring to the teaching office doesn't deny that you can have the Spirit manifesting all sorts of new developments without their initiating these. The role of the teaching office is to discern truth from falsehood, considering Scripture and Tradition in their deliberations. The general pattern through history has been more or less "laissez faire," allowing new developments to emerge, and addressing them if and when they begin to exert significant influence.

We all might consider that Christianity in the West didn't really question the interdependence of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium for over 1,500 years, when Luther decided to challenge a few issues and used Scripture only to back some of his convictions. So it's not like Luther restored to Christendom any kind of original focus or dynamic, as the Church didn't even have an official canon of Scripture for almost 300 years.

I have deep respect and admiration for Luther, but there wewre also problems with both his teaching and his somewhat provocative approach to things. Going into that would probably entail another thread, however, so I'll pass. As Tate has noted, the movie about him is very good, and so a review of that movie by Tate or someone else might prove to be the start of a good discussion.

"Stephen, I'll acknowledge that veneration for Mary is not in the Bible, but it doesn't really "go against" anything in the Bible either, does it? For that matter, reading the New Testament is not in the NT."

Well, it might do if you take the verse about there being only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus .

I think I see the gift of teaching as one that wasn't necessarily bestowed on just the Apostles and their successors. At Antioch in Acts 13, for example, there are listed a number of teachers and prophets who weren't Apostles. Timothy too, had the gift of teaching if I remember correctly and he was a young man, not an elder as such. So the act of appointing teachers to office in the CC becomes an organisational construction of the church, rather than a more satisfying organic construction. An organic construction would run along the lines of "the approved shall be manifest among you."

Right, teaching is a charism, as mentioned earlier in the listing from Paul, where he writes of the primacy of the Apostles. And that teaching charism can arise among the laity as well as the ordained or professed religious.

When I speak of "Teaching Office," I'm referring to the the charism invested in the Apostolic leadership. They might not be good "teachers" in the sense of pedagogical competence, so that point is well-taken. Nevertheless, the Teaching Office in the Apostolic lineage is a recognized charism that has been around since the first generation of Christianity and has continued since -- unless one doesn't agree with the point that the bishops ordained by Paul et all are successors to the Apostles (in which case, one would be wrong ).

I would suggest then that what you refer to as Teaching Office isn't a charism at all but a "position" and that once the canon of scripture was established there was no longer any real need for that particular position as heresies etc could be dealt with by elders in light of the true charism, teaching. Just a suggestion.

An established Teaching Office also suggests that the church is doing the teaching when, in fact, it is the church that is taught.

It seems without accountability to the Tradition of the church, anyone can feel inspired and start another sect.

Yes Tate, that is why we see a hundreds may be thousands denominations. One thing I like in the Tradition of Catholicism is its acceptance and acknowledgement of mysticism and mystics. Direct experience of God, mysticism, is very crucial to grasp the crux of Scripture. Scripture-alone principle can lead us to numerous interpretations of the Scripture if it is not accompanied by the direct experience of God.

As I mentioned on another thread, I grew up in a cultish and heretical religious organization (Worldwide Church of God) started by a man, Herbert W. Armstrong, who had a few spiritual experiences and suddenly thought he was inspired to start God's true church in the latter days. He even eventually came to believe that he was an apostle. You can reference some of what he taught on this site, along with his son, Garner Ted Armstrong.

A couple of days ago I became across to the website of United Church of God (UCG). This Church is a splinter group from the one you mentioned above. I have read some of their booklets and they seem to believe the direct successor of the original Church founded by Christ and apostles. By this belief they reject all other religions including other Christian organisation. In the eyes of UCG other Christian organisation are counterfeit Christianity. In reality UCG is not different from other denominations. They have their own interpretation of the Scripture, that doesn't make them unique or authentic. Interpretation of Scripture if it is not accompanied by Tradition and direct experience of God can lead us to the extreme position of UCG.