Catholicism vs. Protestantism on Scripture

There is quite a large difference between the Catholic and Protestant teachings on scripture, tradition, and authority. For the Protestant, Scripture is the sole source of infallible authority. This is a doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. For the Catholic, while we affirm the inspiration and uniqueness of the Scriptures due to the particular mode of passing on God's Word being also inspired by the Holy Spirit , we believe the words of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13 about accepting God's oral word as preserved in Sacred Tradition.
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

☩ Subscribe for more theological topics ☩

☩ Share this video with a friend ☩

▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃

[fantasia]

No one believed in Bible Alone until the 16th century.

[ToeTag]

Hello. Protestant checking in... With the exception of Paul, who was divinely brought up to speed, so to speak, all of the other teachings were based around the new gospel. The apostles followed Christ, heard his teachings, and recorded them for us in the form of the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts. This is what Paul is referring to. There was no new doctrine being created by Paul, Peter, James, etc., that didn't go unwritten.

But, that doesn't mean Protestants are opposed to new teaching. There are some of us that would use the term Prima Scriptura instead of Sola Scriptura. Meaning, there can be authoritative oral teachings - it's just that they must align with the primacy of God's inspired scripture. Early church fathers agreed. Take Augustine, for example, who wrote: "But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true."

We aren't opposed to new teaching. We're opposed to unbiblical doctrines and dogmas that haven no basis other than a complete stretch and twisting of God's word. Accretions such as the elevation of Mary, asking dead saints to intercede in prayer, and the veneration of icons.

[AuthorizedVersion]

1.Paul’s “tradition” refers to the gospel—not peripheral doctrines. The nearest antecedent to “tradition” in verse 15 is the gospel message in verse 14 (“It was for this He called you through our gospel…”).

2.Paul’s tradition was delivered to everyone—not just the leadership of the Church. Paul directs this tradition to the “brethren, ” not just the leadership of the church. This doesn’t fit with the Roman Catholic interpretation either.

3. The context for this passage is elevating apostolic teaching over heresy—not tradition over Scripture. This tradition was written in opposition to non-Christian heresy being spread at the time ( 2 Thess. 2:2-3).

4. This passage is not about future, post-apostolic tradition. This doesn’t fit with the Roman Catholic view, which holds that oral tradition was authoritatively passed down throughout church history. Instead, Paul’s “tradition” refers to the teaching of the living apostles. In his first letter, Paul writes, “That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. (1 Thess. 2:12). While the teaching of the living apostles was inspired, this ended with the apostles in the first-century.

[userlovesfr]

Keep the faith, keep the faith, Catholic brothers and sisters around the globe.

[Justas]

Can you give me a couple of examples of an oral saying of a specific apostle not recorded in the NT and how you know?

[CocoWynn]

Thank you for speaking and sharing the Truth

[Youmatterministry]

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬ ‭

[danielboone]

So what evidence is there that there is an oral tradition that goes back to the Apostles and where can I find this tradition?

[troyspiller]

So many Catholics get lost in the weeds about tradition. They forget that the basis of the argument lays in who is gets to interpret the tradition and the scripture. An infallible scripture interpreted by an infallible tradition by an infallible magisterium is the part that requires their submission of intellect, mind, and will to a Church that believes in everlasting development of doctrines.

[KevinSmile]

What word spoken by the apostles has Rome infalliblly defined?

[btcvibes]

Before the invention of book printing there was no sola scriptura, that is until 1500s.
For 1500 years even heretics admitted Holy Tradition of the Church.

[amazingbiblia]

The problem with this is that you have no idea about what Paul or any other apostle said besides what they wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit, and also Paul said "Don't go beyond what is writen".
If The Word of God can make you complete and equipped for every good work, that means it is sufficient.
The other problem that no catholic address is: what do you do when your so call "tradition" contradicts the Scripture and then you have to over correct over history? Can God contradicts Himself?

[yannibelousov]

My brother in Christ, there has been no official infallible quotation that has been passed down orally from any apostle aside from in the scripture. The whole of Christian faith and doctrine has been revealed (Jude) "the faith once and for all delivered". There is nowhere that explains the faith most accurately from its earliest witness aside from the scriptures. Churches were already being disobedient before the apostles died even though their traditions were handed down from the apostles themselves. We believe sola scriptura because there is no more an accurate witness to God's revelation. The Catholic church only holds the doctrine Sola Ecclesia instead of Sola Scriptura because it HAS to trust the church in all its interpretations and ecclesial rulings from the councils, papal ex cathedra statements, etc..

[neodaltiair]

Anyone else notice the hidden assumption that this nebulous ‘tradition’ is apostolic? You can’t just carry on like everything you believe that is not in the NT is apostolic.

[stevedoetsch]

Claiming that you believe in the Bible alone allows you to interpret the Bible as you wish and create your own man-made doctrines

[benry]

Ok can the Catholic church release the unwritten teachings passed down from the apostles that they have been using for the last 2000 years? Unless they don't have them.

[normanreategui]

So... there is a set of teachings from the apostles that they never recorded in the NT?

[JScholastic]

CLAIM: Paul writes, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (2 Thess. 2:15). Roman Catholic theologians claim that we need a teaching magisterium to accurately interpret the Bible. Citing this passage, Catholic apologist Tim Staples writes, “When Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God.”[1] Is this the case?

RESPONSE: There are a number of reasons for disagreeing with this interpretation:

First, the context for this passage is elevating apostolic teaching over heresy—not tradition over Scripture. This tradition was written in opposition to non-Christian heresy being spread at the time (cf. 2 Thess. 2:2-3).

Second, this passage is not about future, post-apostolic tradition. This doesn’t fit with the Roman Catholic view, which holds that oral tradition was authoritatively passed down throughout church history. Instead, Paul’s “tradition” refers to the teaching of the living apostles. In his first letter, Paul writes, “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:12). While the teaching of the living apostles was inspired, this ended with the apostles in the first-century.

Third, Paul’s tradition was delivered to everyone—not just the leadership of the Church. Paul directs this tradition to the “brethren, ” not just the leadership of the church. This doesn’t fit with the Roman Catholic interpretation either.

Fourth, Paul’s “tradition” refers to the gospel—not peripheral doctrines. The nearest antecedent to “tradition” in verse 15 is the gospel message in verse 14 (“It was for this He called you through our gospel…”).

Additionally, the traditions we see are merely human interpretations and additions upon God's word. Colossians 2:8 warns us about this.

[dallasbrat]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul us talking about what the apostles are doing and saying . Not Church father's 100s or 1000s of years later

[JaredEast]

Not Catholic, but I definitely hold more to this viewpoint