Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Kephapaulos on August 24, 2006, 06:58:05 PM
-
Well, could there ever be such thing as prima scriptura or if not, what Catholic sources could we look to in that case then?
-
I'm no expert on this issue, but from what I know, the Catholic faith uses the "twin pillars" of Scripture and Tradition.
How can any one of them be "primary"?
Both of them are absolutely necessary to Catholicism. So much is not in scripture that Tradition isn't just "handy" -- it's downright necessary.
If you doubt it, just look at the mess the Protestants are in! How many protestant sects would even still qualify as religions? Any religion without dogmas, a claim of being true, or moral obligations is a joke, it seems to me.
Matthew
-
How can any one of them be "primary"?
Particularly when the one in question had to have an authoritative decision as to what even constituted the contents thereof. Further, the NT books that were eventually (late 4th century) considered as divinely inspired were not even written until several decades after our Lord's ascension (in some cases - but at least several years in all cases).
How can the Church function for decades when she is without her "primary" source (the canon of which was not finally determined until over 340 years after our Lord ascended)?
-
How can any one of them be "primary"?
Particularly when the one in question had to have an authoritative decision as to what even constituted the contents thereof. Further, the NT books that were eventually (late 4th century) considered as divinely inspired were not even written until several decades after our Lord's ascension (in some cases - but at least several years in all cases).
How can the Church function for decades when she is without her "primary" source (the canon of which was not finally determined until over 340 years after our Lord ascended)?
The earliest date I have seen for the Gospel of St. Matthew is 38, and so for at least five years after our Lord's Ascension, there was no New Testament writing or the Bible as we know it today. All the Church had was Tradition that was being revealed until the death of St. John and the Septuagint which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament. I guess instead of saying prima scriptura (or much less sola scriptura) we could say Scriptura et Traditio (SET). What do you all think? :wink:
-
Is it being bandied about among Catholics?
I am not certain, as I did not see the thread while at fisheaters, but it seems that Jacob (lumen) was advocating this idea (or one similar to it). If I am wrong about this, apologies to Jacob.
-
I thought that was what the Church always taught; tradition and scripture. No one has answered my question about what brought this up. Is it being bandied about among Catholics?
Well, I think that Vincentius had kind of said or at least implied on FE in the third page of the thread Prima Scriptura Redux that Catholic converts from Protestantism such as Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, and others have seemingly sort of tended toward a "primacy" of Scripture over Tradition. Is that correct, Vincentius?
-
I thought that was what the Church always taught; tradition and scripture. No one has answered my question about what brought this up. Is it being bandied about among Catholics?
Well, I think that Vincentius had kind of said or at least implied on FE in the third page of the thread Prima Scriptura Redux that Catholic converts from Protestantism such as Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, and others have seemingly sort of tended toward a "primacy" of Scripture over Tradition. Is that correct, Vincentius?
Kepha,
My take on the Scriptures, as a cradle Catholic, is this: we learned about the Scriptures, the story of the life of Jesus, through the Catechism, not through chapter and verse as the Protestant do. And Tradition has been handed down to us the same way, through the Mass particularly, and the basic and most necessary prayers. By the time we're 7 years old and ready for First Holy Communion, we know all about Christianity (anyway, as much as can be crammed into the little brain we have). And thereafter we live our lives the way the Catholic Church teaches.
It's different with the Protestants. The Bible is their sole authority and Tradition is rejected, though strangely, each Protestant community and even each Protestant individually, makes up his own tradition (thus the tradition of men, not of God).
Prior to Vatican II, a Prottie's conversion to the Catholic religion was a true (and pure) conversion, in that the convert completely divested himself of all protestant trappings and embraced Catholicism completely -- the Church made sure this would be the case. However, with Vatican II and aggiornamento and the "opening of the windows," a prottie convert still retains vestiges of his old religion and instead of getting rid of them, incorporates them into his version of Catholicism. If we read Scott Hahn or James Akin, they are still prottie at heart --that is, they are still of the liberal mind (modernists) that they were previously. The prima scriptura is protestant in design. It is definitely not Catholic. So these halfway (or semi-) heretics are bringing into the Church the old religion they cannot shake off after becoming Catholic and are turning the faithful into neo Protestants with these teachings. They want Catholics to be Bible-bred. As I stated in a post in FE, there are now more scripture readings (in the Mass in particular) and all the beautiful prayers and hymns (St Thomas wrote most of the beautiful hymns) have been discarded and thrown away. The banal hymns in the Mass IS protestant and nothing more -- directed not to God but to the congregation.
A note in the impasse: the Prima Scriptura thread at FE appears to have lost momentum and has come to a dead stop. Lumen is a sincere convert and is working his way towards being the compleat Catholic...if only he would divest himself and shake off whatever traces of protestantism left in him...
The Church came first (Matthew 16:18). On Pentecost, Tradition was born -- that is, the whole concept of the economy of salvation was infused in the minds and hearts of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost. Then a few of the Apostles decided -- prompted by the Holy Ghost -- to set down in writing about the life of Jesus and the purpose of His Coming, but they wrote in a terse economical way, leaving out much detail. As St. John wrote, not everything that Jesus did and said is to be found in the Scriptures (it would have taken many books and consumed much time). So where thenwhere do we find the doctrines not specifically found in the Bible -- Mary's Immaculate Conception, her bodily Assumption, the concept of the Trinity as one Godhead, etc.? In Sacred Tradition, where else?
EDIT: the whole concept of the economy of salvation (which Jesus has taught to them before the Ascension) was indelibly (i.e., never to be effaced or erased) infused in the minds and hearts of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost.
-
The Novus Ordo is very protestant in many ways, not just the Mass. This has lead to a leaning toward Scripture as the most important source of our Faith.
Many of the post Vatican II changes gave Scripture a greater place (and almost completely wiped out Tradition). Again, it was more or less what happened in 1517 with Luther. Only this time it was Sola Scriptura Lite
A certain moderator on FE likes to pride himself on being a Scripture teacher -- but I must say, if he were any more liberal or Novus Ordo leaning, he probably wouldn't be able to stand FE :)
You can tell he grew up in the Novus Ordo, and for all I know he still goes there. His heart is still in that mindset, at least.
Matthew
-
The Novus Ordo is very protestant in many ways, not just the Mass. This has lead to a leaning toward Scripture as the most important source of our Faith.
Many of the post Vatican II changes gave Scripture a greater place (and almost completely wiped out Tradition). Again, it was more or less what happened in 1517 with Luther. Only this time it was Sola Scriptura Lite
A certain moderator on FE likes to pride himself on being a Scripture teacher -- but I must say, if he were any more liberal or Novus Ordo leaning, he probably wouldn't be able to stand FE :)
You can tell he grew up in the Novus Ordo, and for all I know he still goes there. His heart is still in that mindset, at least.
Matthew
Well, to clarify (if you do not mind, Matthew :wink:) from what I gather, he was not in the NO too long and grew up Protestant :cyclops: I do not know about him priding himself for being a Scripture teacher though. I cannot say. We cannot be too quick to judge his person, but indeed, there are some topics of dispute some of us have here with him. He is a fellow Catholic though nonetheless, and we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt just in case we are actually on the same page if at all.
EDITED
-
When I said "prides himself" I should have said "considers himself" -- because that phrase doesn't imply indulging in vanity.
Because I'm not trying to judge him, but I have noticed (without trying) that I tend to disagree with him on a great many things.
If I knew that I was still an ignoramus, it would be different. But the things I know about, I'm sure about. I'll admit when I don't know about something.
It's hard to explain, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
Like when someone tells you the Catholic Faith isn't the true faith -- you know they're wrong, because you and I know we have the true Faith.
Matthew
-
He does indeed have a great many disagreements with the more "conservative" trads. (This is putting it mildly.) This evening, he left chat to attend a Novus Ordo adoration of the blessed sacrament, and he will not confess to his SSPX priest, preferring the NO, since he doubts SSPX jurisdiction. It's truly unfortunate. But, to say the least, he does not fit the "trad" mold as defined by the "SSPX/Conservative Indult." Anti-SSPX sentiment seems to be growing over there, at least, this is what it feels like to me. Perhaps it's because there are less trads and more indulters/NO.
Anyway, as others have said, Lumen and Matthew had a thread wherein Lumen advocated a scott-hahn style "Prima Scriptura." He was soundly refuted by many people, but I don't think anybody's conceded anything yet.
Welcome, Eric! :smile: It would have been nice if I got to see the first thread about that prima scriptura issue to see what arguments were presented. I imagine Matthew had a pretty good one from I seem to hear. It would be something if he joined CI here. More and more I myself have also noticed that there has been a growing adverse sentiment against certain things advocated by the SSPX concerning the nature of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, not to mention the issues of rock music and modest dress. Besides that, I have noticed too that there has been a considerable increase in the number of neocon indultarians and NOers on FE.
-
That's interesting, because the Indult mentality has a way of taking over, since it's more "moderate" -- as if that's the correct position because they get along with everybody.
I've seen cases personally where Indult Catholics make up a larger percent of the population, and then there's a sudden concern for "PR" and "what things look like to the Novus Ordo Catholics", etc.
When you have more "staunch" traditionalists, there is little or no concern for being misunderstood, etc. since they are fighting for the truth and they err on the side of zeal.
I know what you're talking about though -- I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall sometimes on FE.
For instance, the modest dress thing. As far as I understand Catholic doctrine, women should wear skirts and dresses, and cover themselves as much as possible, if they really have charity for others' souls. They should want to be ridiculed for the world (so much the better to prove their love for Christ!) if they might save one young man from sin. THAT is Catholic.
I've seen way too many who make fun of modesty (pictures of middle eastern women in burqas, anyone?) and who focus on "fitting in" and not inconveniencing themselves ("it's too hot!"), or not being glamorous enough ("that's so frumpy!") which is what I'd expect at Wal-mart, not among Traditional Catholics.
I could name many other examples, but that one should suffice to demonstrate the "with the world" mentality, which is NOT the mentality we should have.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
What is Vox? I know she is not a sede. And I know she is a monarchist. Otherwise I don't know what her position is.
Vox attends the indult, I believe, as far as I have known. She does has sympathies for the SSPX I think still, as far as I have known as well.
EDITED
-
Jacob is saying that Scripture only holds a relative primacy with regard to the sources of revelation, nothing about superceding Tradition. Here is what he said:
So, just for good times: Prima Scriptura is an affirmation that, within the realm of Catholic Theology, Scripture holds a position of relative primacy among the sources of revelation. It is what Leo XIII meant when he said that the Fathers drew "chiefly" from Scripture in their elaboration and defense of the Faith. It is what St. Cyril of Jerusalem meant when he told his catechumens not to trust what he said, if he didn't back himself up with Scripture. It is what St. Augustine meant when he repeatedly referred to Scripture as having "supreme" or "loftiest" authority, or what St. Thomas Aquinas meant when he said that our faith "receives its surety" from Scripture.
There is no need to read any sort of denial of authority to Tradition in this affirmation. Or any real inequality between Scripture and Tradition. But only Scripture is properly speaking the very words of God, because of Divine inspiration, and only Scripture is called "the soul" of Theology.
This is hardly a new concept, and all you have to do is read the Fathers to see this concept in practice, even if they don't use the phrase prima scriptura.
_______________________________________
One must also note that in affirming the completeness and sufficiency of Scripture, the Fathers always presuppose that Tradition is explaining Scripture. I am quite sure Jacob had this in mind as well.
-
Well, Scripture is written Tradition. And Tradition in the strict sense is the unwritten Tradition. And as one priest learned in this subject put it, Scripture is still a part of Tradition (the greatest and best part of it, but only a part). Both are to be reverenced equally. It may be the greatest part, but if exaggerated to the point of Sola Scriptura, then we have a problem, since Tradition explains Scripture, by the authority of the Church.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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."
-
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.