I never really thought about how theological liberalism is more of a rejection of Sola Scriptura over a result of it. I’m loving this series on Systematic Theology!
Simply the church is built upon the Scriptures therefore it must principally exist before the church exist. Therfore, even though the church came to recognize all the Scriptures over years, it still has the highest authority once recognized. Not the church. Scripture informs everything, the is the built upon the information. Also, let's just think. It's The word of God, written down and providentially protected thoughtput the years. Why would you try and decease is authority? Why try and another thing equal to God's word. It just makes sense that Scripture is the highest authority. Sacred Traditions help us, but must be tried against scripture otherwise it is no different then the religious leaders of Jesus' time. Just my thoughts.
Thank you very much for the excellent video, Reverend. I have another question for you: if we reject tradition as fallible (which makes sense to me), how can we protect ourselves against fallible (of our own device) interpretations/understandings of God's infallible words? Thank you.
While I respect your position, I would like to point out that the canon of Scripture you uphold as the sole infallible authority is a product of Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equal and inseparable components of divine revelation. Here, I’d like to explore this critical relationship, address your position, and offer specific examples highlighting Sacred Tradition's necessity. 1. The Canon Is a Sacred Tradition The canon of Scripture-the very collection of books you affirm as inspired and infallible-was determined through the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Scripture does not provide a list of its own books, meaning the identification of the canon requires an authoritative, external process guided by Tradition. Let’s consider some specifics: Examples of Sacred Tradition in Canon Formation: Liturgical Use: The early Church recognized inspired texts by their use in liturgical worship. Example: The four Gospels were universally read in the liturgy, while writings like the Gospel of Peter were excluded. Apostolic Origin: Tradition discerned which texts were connected to the apostles or their close companions. Example: The Gospel of Luke was included because of its connection to Paul, while others with dubious origins were excluded. Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD): These councils, guided by Sacred Tradition, formally recognized the canon, including the Old and New Testament books. The canon is a Sacred Tradition handed down from the apostles through the Church. Subordinating sacred Tradition to Scripture creates a logical contradiction: the Bible cannot authenticate itself without the Tradition that identified its books. 2. Doctrinal Clarity: The Role of Sacred Tradition Sacred Tradition has been indispensable in clarifying doctrines that Scripture alone does not explicitly define. For example: The Trinity: - The Nicene Creed (325 AD) articulated the doctrine of the Trinity, using the term homoousios (“of the same substance”) to affirm the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This term is not found in Scripture but reflects the apostolic Tradition preserved by the Church. Without Sacred Tradition, heresies like Arianism could not be definitively refuted. - The Real Presence in the Eucharist: Sacred Tradition affirms that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Example: St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110): “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” Misinterpretations like Zwingli’s symbolic view arise when Sacred Tradition is subordinated to Scripture or ignored. 3. Apostolic Succession and Unity You argue that the Church’s ministers possess a ministerial, fallible authority subordinate to Scripture. However, as preserved through Sacred Tradition, apostolic succession ensures the faithful transmission of Scripture and orthodoxy. Scriptural Basis for Apostolic Succession: 2 Timothy 2:2: Paul instructs Timothy to entrust his teaching to faithful men who can teach others. Acts 1:20-26: The apostles replace Judas, demonstrating the passing of authority. Matthew 16:18: Christ promises Peter, “Upon this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Without apostolic succession, Scripture becomes vulnerable to private interpretation and fragmentation, as evidenced by the proliferation of Protestant denominations. Sacred Tradition preserves the unity and orthodoxy of the Church. 4. The Infallibility of Scripture Requires Sacred Tradition If Sacred Tradition is subordinate or fallible, how can the Bible’s infallibility-dependent on Tradition for its canon-be proven? The Church discerned which books were divinely inspired through Sacred Tradition. Without it, the Bible’s authority collapses into circular reasoning. Challenge: If the canon is a Sacred Tradition, how can it be subordinate to Scripture? How do you prove the Bible’s infallibility without relying on the Sacred Tradition that identified it? 5. Clarifying the Types of Tradition To avoid confusion, it is essential to distinguish between: - Sacred Tradition: Infallible teachings from Christ and the apostles (e.g., the canon, the Trinity, the Real Presence). - Ecclesial Traditions: Subordinate disciplines or practices (e.g., priestly celibacy, specific liturgical customs). - Human Traditions: Non-essential or erroneous practices (e.g., Pharisaic customs condemned in Matthew 15:3). By conflating all traditions into one category, the argument risks dismissing the role of Sacred Tradition in preserving the deposit of faith. 6. Final Challenges to Sola Scriptura Your position on sola scriptura creates significant challenges that must be addressed: The Canon: If Sacred Tradition is subordinate, how do you justify the inclusion of specific books in the Bible? Without Sacred Tradition, how do you explain how the canon was recognized? Doctrinal Ambiguities: How do you articulate doctrines like the Trinity or the Real Presence, which rely on Tradition to clarify implicit Scriptural teachings? Without Tradition, how do you guard against heresies like Arianism or symbolic Eucharistic theology? Unity and Authority: Without apostolic succession, who has the authority to interpret Scripture and resolve disputes? How do you maintain unity and orthodoxy when private interpretation leads to fragmentation? Infallibility: If Tradition is fallible, how can you prove the Bible’s infallibility-dependent on Tradition for its canon? The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equal and harmonious, flowing from the same divine source (Dei Verbum 9-10). Together, they safeguard the deposit of faith, clarify doctrine, and ensure the unity of Christ’s Church. The canon of Scripture itself is a Sacred Tradition determined by the Church through divine guidance. Subordinating Sacred Tradition to Scripture undermines the foundation upon which the Bible’s authority rests. I hope this discussion helps.
Analogy for “Sacred Tradition” Imagine the lessons and values you learned from your father or grandfather. They didn’t necessarily write them down, but they passed them on to you through their words, actions, and the way they lived. You then taught those same lessons to your own children, preserving and practicing what you were taught. Eventually, your children decide to write some of those lessons down, but what they wrote was informed by the living traditions you handed down. Without those traditions, they wouldn’t know what to write or how to stay faithful to the original teachings. Now imagine if each person in the family decided to write down their own version of those lessons without relying on the original tradition. Over time, those teachings would splinter, and the family’s shared understanding of their history and values would be lost. The living tradition ensures that what is written remains faithful to what was originally taught.” Connecting the Analogy to Sacred Tradition • Like your family lessons, Jesus taught His Apostles through words and actions (Sacred Tradition), and these teachings were faithfully handed down through the Church. • The Apostles and their successors relied on this living Tradition to eventually write down the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. • Sacred Tradition ensures that the faith remains consistent and true, guiding how Scripture is understood and applied. • Without Sacred Tradition, interpreting Scripture could become a “free for all,” leading to confusion and division, much like a family losing its shared values over generations.
Stumbled over a comment on another video, that might answer some of the questions. I've copied the comment verbatim below (the video ruclips.net/video/J8r7E_csxKw/видео.html also addresses this question). Treating some traditions as sacred is not the same thing as treating them as infallible. And the Protestant understanding of how the canon came about differs from the Catholic one. We don't think that the church decided what books were scripture. We think that the church recognised it. The fact that the Greek and Roman churches have different Old Testament canons proves that the issue wasn't settled at any council before 1054. A good understanding of the Protestant view of the canon should probably start from an understanding of what scripture is. The New Testament is the collection of books that can be traced back to the Apostles and those authorised by them. Books like 1 Clement and the Didache were rejected because they were not from the Apsotles. The Old Testament is the collection of books that Christ and the Apostles regarded as scripture. There isn't a single instance in the New Testament of anybody citing part of the Apocrypha as scripture, and I've yet to see anybody produce any historical evidence that the Jews accepted them as scripture. Which leaves the Apocrypha either in the category of not scripture, or in the category of "possibly scripture, but we can't prove it". Hence the historic Protestant position has always been to treat these books as useful, but not authoritative. And Sacred Tradition does not protect the Church from false interpretations of the Bible. If you genuinely believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the same institution that Christ founded, then you have to accept that there was a period of about one generation where the majority of its members (including a majority of Bishops) denied the deity of Christ by accepting the Arian heresy. And, of course, there is the problem of working out which traditions are sacred. The Council of Hieria and the Second Council of Nicea both claimed to be ecumenical councils. One council condemned veneration of icons, the other said that the practice was compulsory. Whichever council you think was correct, you have to accept that a council of well over 300 Bishops chose to explicitly endorse something that another council of well over 300 Bishops condemned as incompatible with the faith.
@@KapteinKul I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your thoughtfulness and effort in these discussions. I also love RZ’s videos-they’re a great resource for digging deeper into our faith. They really encourage critical thinking, which is why I wanted to jump into this conversation about sola scriptura and the role of Sacred Tradition. Here’s where I see a key challenge for sola Scriptura: How do we prove the Bible is infallible without appealing to any oral traditions that Catholics consider Sacred Tradition? Let’s be honest, the Bible didn’t drop from heaven as a fully bound, pre-approved collection. Most of it started as letters or narratives written for specific audiences. The Apostles didn’t leave us a definitive list of inspired books-they handed down their teachings orally. The canon we use today was discerned over centuries by the Church, guided by Sacred Tradition. If sola scriptura claims that Scripture is the sole infallible authority, then anyone who holds that view has to explain: - Why are these 27 books of the New Testament (and only these) inspired? - Why were other writings, like the Gospel of Thomas, excluded? - Why can the Church’s canonization process, which relied on sacred tradition, be trusted? Without Sacred Tradition, there is no solid basis for assuming that the Bible is infallible-it becomes an assumption rather than a certainty. What Do We Mean by Sacred Tradition? I think it’s helpful to clarify what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition so we don’t talk past each other. Sacred Tradition isn’t about customs like Christmas carols or even ecclesial practices like priestly celibacy. Sacred Tradition refers to the oral teachings handed down from the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, and preserved by the Church. Here are a few examples of Sacred Tradition in action: The Canon of Scripture: The Church discerned the inspired books based on Tradition. For example, Hebrews were included in the canon because of their liturgical use and consistency with Apostolic teaching. At the same time, the Gospel of Thomas was excluded because it conflicted with that Tradition. The Trinity: The term homoousios (“of the same substance”), which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity, isn’t in Scripture. It was clarified at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) through Sacred Tradition. The Eucharist: The belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist comes from the oral teachings of the Apostles, as reflected in early Church writings, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 107). Sacred Tradition isn’t something the Church made up-it’s how the Apostles’ teachings have been preserved alongside Scripture. They’re two sides of the same coin, both flowing from the same divine source. Analogy: “Where Is That in the Bible?” Imagine sitting at the feet of an Apostle as they give a homily. Would it make sense to interrupt and ask, “Where is that in the Bible?” Of course not-the New Testament didn’t even exist yet! The Apostles were preaching and teaching orally, and those teachings were faithfully passed down through Sacred Tradition. This analogy highlights the flaw in viewing Scripture as separate or superior to Tradition. Without the Apostolic Tradition, we wouldn’t have Scripture as we know it. .....
...cont. You mentioned that treating some traditions as sacred isn’t the same as treating them as infallible. That’s a fair point, and Catholics would agree-not all traditions are infallible. But Sacred Tradition is. Why? Because it flows from the same source as Scripture: the Apostolic deposit of faith, entrusted to the Church and guided by the Holy Spirit. Here’s how Sacred Tradition has proven its infallibility: The Canon of Scripture: The Church discerned which books were inspired based on criteria rooted in Tradition. Without this process, there would be no Bible as we know it today. The Trinity: Tradition preserved and clarified this central doctrine, especially at councils like Nicaea, where homoousios was affirmed. The Eucharist: The Apostles taught the Real Presence and defended the Church against early heresies. Sacred Tradition and Scripture work together-they’re not competitors. To treat Tradition as subordinate is to ignore how they’ve always functioned as complementary, co-equal components of divine revelation. Here’s where things get tricky for sola scriptura. If you reject Sacred Tradition as infallible, the burden falls on you to prove: How the Bible is infallible without relying on Tradition. Why Apostolic teachings preserved orally (like the Trinity or the Eucharist) aren’t equally infallible. Why can the Church’s process of recognizing the canon, which depended on tradition, still be trusted? By subordinating Tradition, sola scriptura creates a circular problem. It relies on what it claims isn’t infallible to justify Scripture’s authority. What Happens Without Sacred Tradition? History shows us the dangers of rejecting or subordinating Sacred Tradition: The Trinity: Without Tradition, heresies like Arianism could have prevailed, as Scripture alone doesn’t explicitly define the Trinity. The Real Presence: Protestant fragmentation on the Eucharist (symbolic vs. consubstantial) highlights the confusion caused by rejecting Apostolic Tradition. The Canon: The Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanonical books contradicts the early Church, which included these texts in the Septuagint-the version of Scripture used by Christ and the Apostles. Sacred Tradition doesn’t compete with Scripture; it protects and clarifies it. Sacred Tradition isn’t an “extra” but allows Scripture to stand firm. Without it, the Bible’s authority would be impossible to prove. The Catholic understanding that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equal and inseparable offers a consistent and complete framework for preserving the truth of Christ’s teaching. Thanks again for the opportunity to explore these ideas. I wish you a blessed Advent season and will keep you and your ministry in my prayers!
My new favorite channel
I never really thought about how theological liberalism is more of a rejection of Sola Scriptura over a result of it. I’m loving this series on Systematic Theology!
Simply the church is built upon the Scriptures therefore it must principally exist before the church exist. Therfore, even though the church came to recognize all the Scriptures over years, it still has the highest authority once recognized. Not the church. Scripture informs everything, the is the built upon the information.
Also, let's just think. It's The word of God, written down and providentially protected thoughtput the years. Why would you try and decease is authority? Why try and another thing equal to God's word. It just makes sense that Scripture is the highest authority. Sacred Traditions help us, but must be tried against scripture otherwise it is no different then the religious leaders of Jesus' time.
Just my thoughts.
Thank you very much for the excellent video, Reverend. I have another question for you: if we reject tradition as fallible (which makes sense to me), how can we protect ourselves against fallible (of our own device) interpretations/understandings of God's infallible words? Thank you.
While I respect your position, I would like to point out that the canon of Scripture you uphold as the sole infallible authority is a product of Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equal and inseparable components of divine revelation. Here, I’d like to explore this critical relationship, address your position, and offer specific examples highlighting Sacred Tradition's necessity.
1. The Canon Is a Sacred Tradition
The canon of Scripture-the very collection of books you affirm as inspired and infallible-was determined through the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Scripture does not provide a list of its own books, meaning the identification of the canon requires an authoritative, external process guided by Tradition. Let’s consider some specifics:
Examples of Sacred Tradition in Canon Formation:
Liturgical Use: The early Church recognized inspired texts by their use in liturgical worship.
Example: The four Gospels were universally read in the liturgy, while writings like the Gospel of Peter were excluded.
Apostolic Origin: Tradition discerned which texts were connected to the apostles or their close companions.
Example: The Gospel of Luke was included because of its connection to Paul, while others with dubious origins were excluded.
Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD):
These councils, guided by Sacred Tradition, formally recognized the canon, including the Old and New Testament books.
The canon is a Sacred Tradition handed down from the apostles through the Church.
Subordinating sacred Tradition to Scripture creates a logical contradiction: the Bible cannot authenticate itself without the Tradition that identified its books.
2. Doctrinal Clarity: The Role of Sacred Tradition
Sacred Tradition has been indispensable in clarifying doctrines that Scripture alone does not explicitly define. For example:
The Trinity:
- The Nicene Creed (325 AD) articulated the doctrine of the Trinity, using the term homoousios (“of the same substance”) to affirm the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This term is not found in Scripture but reflects the apostolic Tradition preserved by the Church.
Without Sacred Tradition, heresies like Arianism could not be definitively refuted.
- The Real Presence in the Eucharist:
Sacred Tradition affirms that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.
Example: St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110): “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”
Misinterpretations like Zwingli’s symbolic view arise when Sacred Tradition is subordinated to Scripture or ignored.
3. Apostolic Succession and Unity
You argue that the Church’s ministers possess a ministerial, fallible authority subordinate to Scripture. However, as preserved through Sacred Tradition, apostolic succession ensures the faithful transmission of Scripture and orthodoxy.
Scriptural Basis for Apostolic Succession:
2 Timothy 2:2: Paul instructs Timothy to entrust his teaching to faithful men who can teach others.
Acts 1:20-26: The apostles replace Judas, demonstrating the passing of authority.
Matthew 16:18: Christ promises Peter, “Upon this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Without apostolic succession, Scripture becomes vulnerable to private interpretation and fragmentation, as evidenced by the proliferation of Protestant denominations. Sacred Tradition preserves the unity and orthodoxy of the Church.
4. The Infallibility of Scripture Requires Sacred Tradition
If Sacred Tradition is subordinate or fallible, how can the Bible’s infallibility-dependent on Tradition for its canon-be proven? The Church discerned which books were divinely inspired through Sacred Tradition. Without it, the Bible’s authority collapses into circular reasoning.
Challenge:
If the canon is a Sacred Tradition, how can it be subordinate to Scripture? How do you prove the Bible’s infallibility without relying on the Sacred Tradition that identified it?
5. Clarifying the Types of Tradition
To avoid confusion, it is essential to distinguish between:
- Sacred Tradition: Infallible teachings from Christ and the apostles (e.g., the canon, the Trinity, the Real Presence).
- Ecclesial Traditions: Subordinate disciplines or practices (e.g., priestly celibacy, specific liturgical customs).
- Human Traditions: Non-essential or erroneous practices (e.g., Pharisaic customs condemned in Matthew 15:3).
By conflating all traditions into one category, the argument risks dismissing the role of Sacred Tradition in preserving the deposit of faith.
6. Final Challenges to Sola Scriptura
Your position on sola scriptura creates significant challenges that must be addressed:
The Canon:
If Sacred Tradition is subordinate, how do you justify the inclusion of specific books in the Bible?
Without Sacred Tradition, how do you explain how the canon was recognized?
Doctrinal Ambiguities:
How do you articulate doctrines like the Trinity or the Real Presence, which rely on Tradition to clarify implicit Scriptural teachings?
Without Tradition, how do you guard against heresies like Arianism or symbolic Eucharistic theology?
Unity and Authority:
Without apostolic succession, who has the authority to interpret Scripture and resolve disputes?
How do you maintain unity and orthodoxy when private interpretation leads to fragmentation?
Infallibility:
If Tradition is fallible, how can you prove the Bible’s infallibility-dependent on Tradition for its canon?
The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equal and harmonious, flowing from the same divine source (Dei Verbum 9-10). Together, they safeguard the deposit of faith, clarify doctrine, and ensure the unity of Christ’s Church.
The canon of Scripture itself is a Sacred Tradition determined by the Church through divine guidance. Subordinating Sacred Tradition to Scripture undermines the foundation upon which the Bible’s authority rests. I hope this discussion helps.
Great contribution, excited to see the Reverend's response 👍
Analogy for “Sacred Tradition”
Imagine the lessons and values you learned from your father or grandfather. They didn’t necessarily write them down, but they passed them on to you through their words, actions, and the way they lived. You then taught those same lessons to your own children, preserving and practicing what you were taught.
Eventually, your children decide to write some of those lessons down, but what they wrote was informed by the living traditions you handed down. Without those traditions, they wouldn’t know what to write or how to stay faithful to the original teachings.
Now imagine if each person in the family decided to write down their own version of those lessons without relying on the original tradition. Over time, those teachings would splinter, and the family’s shared understanding of their history and values would be lost. The living tradition ensures that what is written remains faithful to what was originally taught.”
Connecting the Analogy to Sacred Tradition
• Like your family lessons, Jesus taught His Apostles through words and actions (Sacred Tradition), and these teachings were faithfully handed down through the Church.
• The Apostles and their successors relied on this living Tradition to eventually write down the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.
• Sacred Tradition ensures that the faith remains consistent and true, guiding how Scripture is understood and applied.
• Without Sacred Tradition, interpreting Scripture could become a “free for all,” leading to confusion and division, much like a family losing its shared values over generations.
Stumbled over a comment on another video, that might answer some of the questions. I've copied the comment verbatim below (the video ruclips.net/video/J8r7E_csxKw/видео.html also addresses this question).
Treating some traditions as sacred is not the same thing as treating them as infallible. And the Protestant understanding of how the canon came about differs from the Catholic one. We don't think that the church decided what books were scripture. We think that the church recognised it. The fact that the Greek and Roman churches have different Old Testament canons proves that the issue wasn't settled at any council before 1054. A good understanding of the Protestant view of the canon should probably start from an understanding of what scripture is. The New Testament is the collection of books that can be traced back to the Apostles and those authorised by them. Books like 1 Clement and the Didache were rejected because they were not from the Apsotles. The Old Testament is the collection of books that Christ and the Apostles regarded as scripture. There isn't a single instance in the New Testament of anybody citing part of the Apocrypha as scripture, and I've yet to see anybody produce any historical evidence that the Jews accepted them as scripture. Which leaves the Apocrypha either in the category of not scripture, or in the category of "possibly scripture, but we can't prove it". Hence the historic Protestant position has always been to treat these books as useful, but not authoritative.
And Sacred Tradition does not protect the Church from false interpretations of the Bible. If you genuinely believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the same institution that Christ founded, then you have to accept that there was a period of about one generation where the majority of its members (including a majority of Bishops) denied the deity of Christ by accepting the Arian heresy. And, of course, there is the problem of working out which traditions are sacred. The Council of Hieria and the Second Council of Nicea both claimed to be ecumenical councils. One council condemned veneration of icons, the other said that the practice was compulsory. Whichever council you think was correct, you have to accept that a council of well over 300 Bishops chose to explicitly endorse something that another council of well over 300 Bishops condemned as incompatible with the faith.
@@KapteinKul I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your thoughtfulness and effort in these discussions. I also love RZ’s videos-they’re a great resource for digging deeper into our faith. They really encourage critical thinking, which is why I wanted to jump into this conversation about sola scriptura and the role of Sacred Tradition.
Here’s where I see a key challenge for sola Scriptura:
How do we prove the Bible is infallible without appealing to any oral traditions that Catholics consider Sacred Tradition?
Let’s be honest, the Bible didn’t drop from heaven as a fully bound, pre-approved collection. Most of it started as letters or narratives written for specific audiences. The Apostles didn’t leave us a definitive list of inspired books-they handed down their teachings orally. The canon we use today was discerned over centuries by the Church, guided by Sacred Tradition.
If sola scriptura claims that Scripture is the sole infallible authority, then anyone who holds that view has to explain:
- Why are these 27 books of the New Testament (and only these) inspired?
- Why were other writings, like the Gospel of Thomas, excluded?
- Why can the Church’s canonization process, which relied on sacred tradition, be trusted?
Without Sacred Tradition, there is no solid basis for assuming that the Bible is infallible-it becomes an assumption rather than a certainty.
What Do We Mean by Sacred Tradition?
I think it’s helpful to clarify what Catholics mean by Sacred Tradition so we don’t talk past each other. Sacred Tradition isn’t about customs like Christmas carols or even ecclesial practices like priestly celibacy. Sacred Tradition refers to the oral teachings handed down from the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, and preserved by the Church.
Here are a few examples of Sacred Tradition in action:
The Canon of Scripture:
The Church discerned the inspired books based on Tradition. For example, Hebrews were included in the canon because of their liturgical use and consistency with Apostolic teaching. At the same time, the Gospel of Thomas was excluded because it conflicted with that Tradition.
The Trinity:
The term homoousios (“of the same substance”), which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity, isn’t in Scripture. It was clarified at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) through Sacred Tradition.
The Eucharist:
The belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist comes from the oral teachings of the Apostles, as reflected in early Church writings, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 107).
Sacred Tradition isn’t something the Church made up-it’s how the Apostles’ teachings have been preserved alongside Scripture. They’re two sides of the same coin, both flowing from the same divine source.
Analogy: “Where Is That in the Bible?”
Imagine sitting at the feet of an Apostle as they give a homily. Would it make sense to interrupt and ask, “Where is that in the Bible?” Of course not-the New Testament didn’t even exist yet! The Apostles were preaching and teaching orally, and those teachings were faithfully passed down through Sacred Tradition.
This analogy highlights the flaw in viewing Scripture as separate or superior to Tradition. Without the Apostolic Tradition, we wouldn’t have Scripture as we know it.
.....
...cont.
You mentioned that treating some traditions as sacred isn’t the same as treating them as infallible. That’s a fair point, and Catholics would agree-not all traditions are infallible. But Sacred Tradition is. Why? Because it flows from the same source as Scripture: the Apostolic deposit of faith, entrusted to the Church and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Here’s how Sacred Tradition has proven its infallibility:
The Canon of Scripture:
The Church discerned which books were inspired based on criteria rooted in Tradition. Without this process, there would be no Bible as we know it today.
The Trinity:
Tradition preserved and clarified this central doctrine, especially at councils like Nicaea, where homoousios was affirmed.
The Eucharist:
The Apostles taught the Real Presence and defended the Church against early heresies.
Sacred Tradition and Scripture work together-they’re not competitors. To treat Tradition as subordinate is to ignore how they’ve always functioned as complementary, co-equal components of divine revelation.
Here’s where things get tricky for sola scriptura. If you reject Sacred Tradition as infallible, the burden falls on you to prove:
How the Bible is infallible without relying on Tradition.
Why Apostolic teachings preserved orally (like the Trinity or the Eucharist) aren’t equally infallible.
Why can the Church’s process of recognizing the canon, which depended on tradition, still be trusted?
By subordinating Tradition, sola scriptura creates a circular problem. It relies on what it claims isn’t infallible to justify Scripture’s authority.
What Happens Without Sacred Tradition?
History shows us the dangers of rejecting or subordinating Sacred Tradition:
The Trinity: Without Tradition, heresies like Arianism could have prevailed, as Scripture alone doesn’t explicitly define the Trinity.
The Real Presence: Protestant fragmentation on the Eucharist (symbolic vs. consubstantial) highlights the confusion caused by rejecting Apostolic Tradition.
The Canon: The Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanonical books contradicts the early Church, which included these texts in the Septuagint-the version of Scripture used by Christ and the Apostles.
Sacred Tradition doesn’t compete with Scripture; it protects and clarifies it.
Sacred Tradition isn’t an “extra” but allows Scripture to stand firm. Without it, the Bible’s authority would be impossible to prove. The Catholic understanding that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equal and inseparable offers a consistent and complete framework for preserving the truth of Christ’s teaching.
Thanks again for the opportunity to explore these ideas. I wish you a blessed Advent season and will keep you and your ministry in my prayers!