REVELATION, APOSTOLIC TRADITION and the notion of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)

Question 12 of The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church now asks the following:

"What is Apostolic Tradition?"

Answer:

"Apostolic Tradition is the transmission of the message of Christ, brought about from the very beginnings of Christianity by means of preaching, bearing witness, institutions, worship, and inspired writings. The Apostles transmitted all they received from Christ and learned from the Holy Spirit to their successors, the bishops, and through them to all generations until the end of the world."

The notion of Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone", as the definitive source of all that is genuine, all that is authentic, and to which alone we can confidently appeal in our understanding of God, the will of God, and all pertaining to matters of faith and morals, dates to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

In fact, the doctrine itself was articulated as an explicit renunciation of the Catholic doctrine of the role of Tradition in understanding the revelation of God to man. Effectively, "if it is not in the Bible, it is a mere contrivance of man and possesses no authority. Indeed, it is further argued, does not Saint Paul himself tell us that "All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." ? (2 Timothy 3.16)

While this deep respect for, and devotion to, the Bible as the authentic Word of God derives from a holy impulse, it is, nevertheless, not defective but deficient. This is not said with reproach, but with the deepest affection for those who so revere "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Saint Matthew 4.4).

Consider, however, the following inescapable problematic:

When Saint Paul wrote this, was he appealing to his own epistles, and those of Saints Peter, John, James, and Jude? Such letters either did not then exist or had not yet been written. Could it be an appeal to the Synoptic Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? They had not been written at that time either. The earliest recorded date of any written part of the New Testament occurs in the Epistle of Saint James around 44 AD, followed closely by Saint Paul's Letter to the Galatians around 49 AD, with the final book,
the Apocalypse, or the Book of Revelation, around 90 AD., while the earliest Gospel, that of Saint Mark, was written somewhere between 50 and 60 AD.

To what Scripture, then, did the earliest Christians appeal to authenticate their evangel, to substantiate their beliefs? They relied upon the oral transmission of the Gospel, of what Jesus said and did, through the mouths of the Apostles --- who in turn transmitted this deposit of the Faith through their successors, to subsequent generations. The corpus of the the New Testament as we now understand --- beginning with the Gospel according to Saint Matthew and concluding with the Book of Revelation, or the Apocalypse --- was developed over many centuries and not brought to the literary and chronological form we now recognize until the the 3rd Century, and first listed by Saint Athanasius in 367 in his Festal Letter 39 to the nascent Church in Egypt* --- at the earliest.

This means that, apart from Apostolic Tradition, the Christians of the first three and a half centuries relied upon the Gospel and its interpretation being authentically communicated to them not in a literary form to which they could appeal chapter and verse to validate what they believed, but through the voice and authority invested in the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops.

If "Sola Scriptura" is the only authentic means of corroborating the Word of God --- then the earliest Christians had no Scripture to which to appeal and therefore no irrefragable ground for their belief.

The canon of the New Testament came to the Protestant Reformers through the Catholic Church which possessed it through the Apostolic Tradition which both preserved and proclaimed it, and through which alone it was articulated from the earliest Christian communities to the present day.

Recommended Reading:
A more detailed explanation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in light of the notion of Tradition is well presented in the following article, which is not very long, but much to the point: http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/solscr01.htm

* From Letter XXXIX. (for 367.) Festal Letter of Saint Athanasius

"Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter
of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are
the divine books which are accepted by the Church.

... 1. They have fabricated books which they call books of tables , in which they shew stars, to which
they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach:
those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible
science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the
right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.

... 2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine
Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple
should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth
read other books-those called apocryphal-led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books;
I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are
acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of
Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: Forasmuch as some have taken in hand , to reduce into order
for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture,
concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by
true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon,
and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn
those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having
these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed
down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as
follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy.
Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books
of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one
book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first
and second6 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next
Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one
book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book;
afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels,
according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called
Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In
addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two
to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then
to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to
Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they
contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him
take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, `Ye do err, not
knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, `Search the Scriptures, for these are they that
testify of Me .'

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides
these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join
us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of
Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the
Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is
there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them
when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them
as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple."

"the original Latin from the ancient Vulgate is always provided for the sake of literal accuracy.."

That is except when it is Rome one questions then one must turn to the sources that St Athanasius used which was the Greek.

Let's not forget or blur history by forgetting that St Athanasius the Great was a defender against Arianism.

Prior to this years Yearbook of the Pope which removes the Title of "Patriarch of the West" yet still contains Archbishop of Rome, one of the original 5 Bishops (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem), the 1st millenium of the Church condemned Rome for changes to the Nicean Creed (changed to the Robbers Council after Rome first agreed in the 9th century before the great schism and then disagreed after the "filioque" in the 11th century (kind of like the flip flop of John Kerry for modern readers]).

But just as important was that Rome was considered by the 8th Ecumenical Council to be the modern heresy, Papism, greater than that of Arianism. See http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

Interesting that St Athanasius was chosen to defend Rome or the Vulgate. That would be like Choosing McCarthy to defend Stalin.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.