Author Topic: About that Prima Scriptura issue... (Read 15155 times)

Trinity · « **Reply #15 on:** August 27, 2006, 10:14:07 AM »

I'm going to jump way out on a limb here and guess that tradition has also been written down, just not in the Bible. There may be no need to read any denial of tradition into that, but it keeps coming up that way in my head. That word "prima" does set them apart.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #16 on:** August 27, 2006, 10:37:14 AM »

It does seem so, but it's the somewhat the same thing with regard to the Holy Trinity. God the Father is called the First Person of the Trinity, God the Son the Second, and the Holy Ghost the Third Person. Yet all are equal persons in one God. I agree though that using the word "prima" (because the Scriptures are properly divinely inspired) is ambiguous to say the least.

Trinity · « **Reply #17 on:** August 27, 2006, 01:18:16 PM »

I wonder if First, Second and Third person isn't different from this. Since they are consubstantial, there is no difference. Unless we are saying that scripture came first, which it didn't. In fact, all was tradition until the Bible was assembled much later. OK, maybe scripture is the cream of tradition. Could that be it?

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #18 on:** August 27, 2006, 02:33:05 PM »

I believe that's exactly what Jacob is saying. It's also what Msgr. Agius said: "Scripture is a part of Tradition -- the greatest and best part of it -- but only a part of it."

Vincentius · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2006, 04:10:31 PM »

It's really not a matter whether the Scriptures hold a place of primacy but that the term "prima" has a protestant connotation to it (even argued by a protestant theologian that "sola" should really be "prima"). Just as Matthew (when he challenged the essay) and everybody else has stated, it is simply not found in the Catholic lexicon. However, it is not Hahn's (and company) purpose to bring to the Catholics the protestant belief that the Scriptures is the sole rule to be followed in the economy of salvation, but rather it is because that's how they were bred: as Bible-believers and it is simply natural for them to string along these old "traditions." I tend to think Hahn, Akin, et al., see themselves as neo-reformers, not of the Lutheran mold of course but along the lines of JP-II, as a Catholic reformer. Recall Hahn introducing publicly his five decades of the Rosary, similar to JP-II's "Luminous" mysteries. No lay Catholic of note or of late has dared to publicize private prayers or to tamper with a ancient and revered prayer. We may ourselves have prayers of our own but we have never thought of pushing it to be included in the Catholic book of prayers.

Another thorn in the side is their anti-traditional Catholic stance. I took Akin to task for his insistence of labelling the SSPX "schismatic," when it has already been pointed out (no less than three Cardinals and the pope) that there is no schism. I never got a reply from him. We have also taken note that these converts are amicable to other converts so lomg as they they remain novus ordo. When they don't they are ostracized.