Tradition vs Scripture

[Ralph]

From the Catholic position on Tradition what do we need Scripture for? What does Scripture add that Traditioin does not?

[ModBot2000]

These discussions have a tendency to denigrate. Note up front that this thread is being moderated and will be closed if it strays from the site rules and reasoning.

In word: with grace.
In action: with moderation.
In all things: with love.

[Ralph]

Thanks ModBot2000 for the reminder. I am honestly looking foward to thinking/talking/writting this through.

Ralph

[xulon]

To the Roman Catholic, Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition so they would say you are giving us a false choice.

[ScottL]

I would suggest also clicking on the Forum tab at the top and doing a search for Tradition. There have been tons of discussion on this topic, even recently. Just a thought.

[Otsukafan]

Do you mean Catholic as in "the whole Church" or as in "Roman Catholic"?

[Ralph]

xulon said:

To the Roman Catholic, Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition so they would say you are giving us a false choice.

Part of or the same as? Is there any belief that Tradition is incomplete on its own?

[Ralph]

Otsukafan said:

Do you mean Catholic as in "the whole Church" or as in "Roman Catholic"?

I used "Catholic" only because it is offensive to some Catholics to use Roman, but I do mean Roman Catholics

[Thomas Ham]

Tradition is incompetent on it's own. To those "traditional" churches that are around, they all claim to be rooted in Scripture, which was part of the debate on the Eucharist thread.

Ralph said:

xulon said:

To the Roman Catholic, Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition so they would say you are giving us a false choice.

Part of or the same as? Is there any belief that Tradition is incomplete on its own?

[xulon]

Every Sacred Traditionalist I have talked to has said that the Scriptures are incomplete and that God's full Revelation is in Tradition, of which Scripture is a part.

Ralph said:

xulon said:

To the Roman Catholic, Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition so they would say you are giving us a false choice.

Part of or the same as? Is there any belief that Tradition is incomplete on its own?

[Ralph]

xulon said:

Every Sacred Traditionalist I have talked to has said that the Scriptures are incomplete and that God's full Revelation is in Tradition, of which Scripture is a part.

Ralph said:

xulon said:

To the Roman Catholic, Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition so they would say you are giving us a false choice.

Part of or the same as? Is there any belief that Tradition is incomplete on its own?

If that is the case, it seems to me we don't need the Scripture.

[John Roberts]

Tradition puts man above God and Scripture puts God above man.

Why? because tradition says "this is what the "church" has always believed" which supposedly makes the thing true. It's a favorite argument, the only problem is it's an invalid argument. Just because something has been believed for 1600 years does not make it true.

Tradition has made a man to be infallible. It must, or else it has nothing to fall back on. How can anyone maintain tradition as a valid arguement unless it claims infalliblity for itself. But history reveals the fallibility of tradition.

[Otsukafan]

Saint Vincent of Lerins. The Commonitory, 434 A.D.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.