Sola scriptura (Bible Alone) is unbiblical

[LivingWordUnity]

There are four problems with the defense of sola scriptura using 2 Timothy 3:16. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. The two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.

Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible teaches justification by faith, and we Catholics believe it, but we do not believe in justification by faith alone, as Protestants do. Among other reasons, the Bible says that we are "justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24). There is no sola</I> in 2 Timothy 3:16 either. The passage never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith.

James 1:4 illustrates the problem:
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else.

Of course, any Christian knows this would be absurd. But James’s emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola in either text. Sola patientia would be just as wrong as sola scriptura.

Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture. It is silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but it is remarkably clear in teaching that oral Tradition is just as much the word of God as Scripture is. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, Paul said:
And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13) According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, 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:
So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15) Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained. R. J. Foster points out that the phrase "man of God" refers to ministers, not to the average layperson (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1149). This title was used in the Old Testament to describe those consecrated to the service of God (Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kgs. 12:22). Not only does the text not say Scripture sola, but Paul’s exhortation for Timothy to study the word of God is in the context of an exhortation to "preach the word" as a minister of Christ. To use this text to claim that sola scriptura is being taught to the average layperson is—to borrow a phrase from Paul—going far "beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).
Source (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701btb.asp)

[Hentenza]

Ah, Catholic answers. Gee, they must be right so lets just run and join the RC.;)

[DeaconDean]

subscribing

[LivingWordUnity]

Ah, Catholic answers. Gee, they must be right so lets just run and join the RC.;)Ad Hominem

Example
(1) William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an intelligent designer who created life.
(2) Dembski would say that because he’s religious.
Therefore:
(3) Modern biology doesn’t support intelligent design.
This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem.
Logical Fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/personalattack.html)

[DeaconDean]

Ad Hominem

Example
(1) William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an intelligent designer who created life.
(2) Dembski would say that because he’s religious.
Therefore:
(3) Modern biology doesn’t support intelligent design.
This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem.
Logical Fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/personalattack.html)

http://bestsmileys.com/signs1/15.gif

Stick with the issue at hand!

[LivingWordUnity]

http://bestsmileys.com/signs1/15.gif

Stick with the issue at hand!Hentenza was using an ad hominem argument in a sarcastic way. I showed another example of an ad hominem argument to make it easier to see when someone is using this kind of argument.

You should tell Hentenza not to use the ad hominem argument and stick to the issue at hand.

[DeaconDean]

Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed. This also applies to groups. In other words, play nice, don't hurt others, nor call them names.
If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.
Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.
Use the brain God gave you. Think before you post. Think about how your post may affect someone else.


http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0

Because one person chooses one course of action does not mean you have to follow suit.

The rule in football also applies here. Its often not the person who throws the first punch who gets penalized, but the person who responds in like fashion.

If you can't play nice, then you can't play at all.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0

Because one person chooses one course of action does not mean you have to follow suit.

The rule in football also applies here. Its often not the person who throws the first punch who gets penalized, but the person who responds in like fashion.

If you can't play nice, then you can't play at all.

God Bless

Till all are one.How is pointing out that someone has used an ad hominem argument a form of flaming them or being mean to them? :scratch:

[DeaconDean]

Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but don’t you need a swimming pool to play Marco Polo?



I'm not going to debate the rules with you!

I am pointing out that if one person should steal, does that make it right for you to do the same thing?

No.

If you feel that it was an "ad hominen" attack, you should have reported it as such, not respond in the same fashion.

I'm here to insure this thread stays on track. And you post was near to derailing the thread.

Stick to the topic at hand.

Ad hominen attacks of so called ad hominen attacks will not be tolerated!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

DeaconDean,

I'm just trying to figure out what I did wrong. Are you saying that I had used an ad hominem argument? If so, could you please tell me how?

I won't be able to respond for at least about a week since I have to travel. May God bless all of you, and have a good week ahead.

[PaladinGirl]

The concept of sola scriptura is thoroughly Biblical. Please see this article:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html

[LivingWordUnity]

The concept of sola scriptura is thoroughly Biblical. Please see this article:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura1.html
If it is Biblical, why don't you show me where it says in the Bible that the Bible is the only authority for instruction in the Christian faith?

You tell me that you believe in sola scriptura but instead of directing me to the Bible alone you direct me to an article where someone gives their private interpretation of the Bible.

If in Protestant belief no one has any more real authority than anyone else to interpret the Bible, why should I buy the interpretation of the one who wrote the christian answers article? He doesn't have any more authority than I do to interpret scripture.

[DeaconDean]

Ah, Catholic answers. Gee, they must be right so lets just run and join the RC.;)

I got one for you.

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

Clement writes:

"Look into the Holy Scriptures, which are the true words of the Holy Spirit. You know that there is nothing unjust or counterfeit written in them." -1 Clem. 20:2

Even Clement of Rome viewed the scripturers as the Word of God as given to the apostles.

"there is nothing unjust or counterfeit written in them"

We can trust scripture alone.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

I got one for you.

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

Clement writes:

"Look into the Holy Scriptures, which are the true words of the Holy Spirit. You know that there is nothing unjust or counterfeit written in them." -1 Clem. 20:2

Even Clement of Rome viewed the scripturers as the Word of God as given to the apostles.

"there is nothing unjust or counterfeit written in them"

We can trust scripture alone.

God Bless

Till all are one.All of the Popes in history would agree with that quote but not with "scripture alone".

Just as with what is in the Bible, I see where it says that scripture is the word of God but not where it says "scripture alone".

[DeaconDean]

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?
Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?
When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?
The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)
If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?
If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?
If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?
If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?
How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?
If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)
Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)
Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)
If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

Enquiring minds want to know.


God Bless

Till all are one.

[cubanito]

In substituting "Sola Papa" for "Sola Scriptura" we do not remove any difficultiies arising from individual interpretation, but rather add more layers of difficulty.

How does the OP know he has correctly interpreted the meaning behind the voluminous writings of the various Bishops of Rome over t he past 2,000 years? Or even the meaning behind the carefully nuanced words of the current occupant? Short of a telepathic mind-meld w someone, NONE of us precisely know what the other's intended meaning is. This does not mean we do not get sufficient information from the plain written or spoken word to have a working understanding, just that the kind of absolute knowledge the OP deisres within human communication is IMPOSSIBLE.

Thus "Sola Papa" solves nothing when it comes to understanding. It does create an artificial external union based upon force, fear and/or peer pressure, just as the world creates such apparent harmonious unions in the forms of nations, armies and other religious organizations. Such external conformity is increasingly reassuring in a post-modern world where even the concept of Truth is denied. Yet God does not call us to the comfort of following an earthly leader, but rather to the discomfort of the small still voice of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps then "sola Scriptura" needs ammendment after all. We do infdeed need a telepathic mind-meld. If so, let it be with God, who promised Himself as an INTERNAL guide that would be made available to each person. For this reason, it was better that Christ should go away, so that the True Vicar of Christ should return to indwell us.

And we should deny this for the illusion of unity?

Better that we are imperfectly united in Spirit, for each one of us does not yet fully conform to Him, than we appear united as the world also can create such unions.

JR

[cubanito]

When someone writes "1+1 = 2"

does that one do so infallibly?

Broadening the query, can we indeed perform math infallibly?

I continue to await the answer...

JR

[LivingWordUnity]

DeaconDean,

If I did not have a family or a full-time job to give my time to, I might have time to answer all 29 of your questions. But even if I did take all day long to answer all 29 of your questions, I know that my answers would not change your set opinions. Take care.

[DeaconDean]

You know what LivingWordUnity, your not here to debate/discuss Fundamentalist viewpoints and/or beliefs/doctrines. Your here to try and justify your Catholic beliefs against Fundamentalist beliefs.

There is nothing you can say that persuade us to come over to your side of the "denomination" game. Likewise, there is nothing we can say to persuade you to ours.

Therefore, I am going to try to avoid you at all costs. Your not here for understanding but to cause strife and discension. I am therefore adding to you to my ignore list. That way your posts are "hidden" to me. This way, we shall not argue and cause strife amosg ourselves. I am doing this to try and avoid any unplesantries and to do my part to help keep the peace here.

I wish you luck in your enterprise.

God Bless and farewell.

Till all are one.

[cubanito]

Sadly, I can not say I am surprised. The OP has posted more than 20 separate threads, and made more than 30 questions. Yet when he refuses to answer the only question I have repeatedly posted to him. A question which is the reflection of one (of the many) previous questions the OP posted, one which he became rather insitent on getting answered.

So I will answer the OP's question, and my reflected question.

Do I interpret Scripture infallibly?

Yes - in the manner which I can perform mathematics infallibly, as demonstrated by 1+1=2.

No- in the same manner I do not always perform mathematics infallibly, in the way that sometimes my 11yo corrects my arithmetic when I try to teach her math and, due to simple error, I get a sum incorrect.

Thus we see by substituting one potentially infallible human pursuit (theology) for another (mathematics) that we can indeed be infallible about the basics, yet at times make errors when the complexity of basic problems grow. Thus the question of human infallibility is that we are POTENTIALLY infallible, yet not actually so.

In any case, the same question can also be rephrased to the OP differently: How do you know you are interpreting the RC "Magesterium" correctly? Do you have a constant telepathic communication with the "Pope" that you should somehow know what he meant by what he wrote? Substituting "Sola Papa" for "Sola Scriptura" is similar to how some atheists answer the question of how life begins by saying it was seeded to Earth from somewhere else in the Univers. It simply removes changes the location, but solves nothing. If you can not understand the written Scriptures, how can you hope to understand the massive tomes of the "Magisterium"? At least with Scripture it is humanly possible to read it all.

Such distinctions can not be answered by a "yes or no" format.

Yet, when I asked the OP a question identical in format to the one he repeatedly posted, and went on and on in accusatory diatribes, the OP has no time to answer.

I can understand your attitude DeaconDean. Perhaps at some point in the future I will also join you. For now I will not ignore the OP.

However, since the OP has brought in the issue of time...I am the sole income for my family (wife+4kids), and as a primary care MD I hardly need to state that I am also rather busy. So, I will be selective as to what I answer. If someone wishes to think that my non-answer is tantamount to my inability to answer, so be it, I also have limited time. If the OP chooses to ignore his own question made elsewhere, then I will ignore any new questions until the OP answers the crucial proble he himself raised previously.

JR

[LivingWordUnity]

Sadly, I can not say I am surprised. The OP has posted more than 20 separate threads, and made more than 30 questions.I didn't post 29 questions all in one post at one time.

How can you expect someone to answer 29 questions all in one post?

If someone would ask me one question at a time, that would be reasonable. But 29 questions all at once in one post makes it impossible to focus on answering any of them.

[LivingWordUnity]

You know what LivingWordUnity, your not here to debate/discuss Fundamentalist viewpoints and/or beliefs/doctrines. Your here to try and justify your Catholic beliefs against Fundamentalist beliefs.

There is nothing you can say that persuade us to come over to your side of the "denomination" game. Likewise, there is nothing we can say to persuade you to ours.I am open to the truth wherever it leads me. And the truth has led me to the Catholic Church.

If you could show me biblical and historical proof that a church other than the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ 2,000 years ago then I would join that Church.

I don't believe that I know everything. I am always trying to learn new things every day. One thing I want to do is read more of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
.

[Hentenza]

I am open to the truth wherever it leads me. And the truth has led me to the Catholic Church.

If you could show me biblical and historical proof that a church other than the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ 2,000 years ago then I would join that Church.

I don't believe that I know everything. I am always trying to learn new things every day. One thing I want to do is read more of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
.

That is the problem. You have been shown proof time and time again but you simply are not interested because of your crusade. You might want to take off your RCC colored glasses and look at the evidence that has been presented.

[LivingWordUnity]

That is the problem. You have been shown proof time and time again but you simply are not interested because of your crusade. You might want to take off your RCC colored glasses and look at the evidence that has been presented.Opinions are not proof. I have been shown quotes of someone giving their personal opinion about this doctrine or that one.

When I ask someone to show me Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide in the bible, I get a modern commentary instead of where it is stated in the Bible.

Why do people always have to go to a modern commentary which is outside of the Bible whenever they want to show that the doctrine of "Bible alone" is biblical?
.

[Hentenza]

Opinions are not proof. I have been shown quotes of someone giving their personal opinion about this doctrine or that one.

When I ask someone to show me Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide in the bible, I get a modern commentary instead of where it is stated in the Bible.

Why do people always have to go to a modern commentary which is outside of the Bible whenever they want to show that the doctrine of "Bible alone" is biblical?
.

Your opinions are not proof either. :doh:

Sola Scriptura merely means that tradition is subject to scripture. Scripture is God's manual lovingly given to us for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.
And, no, I am getting into a debate with you about tradition versus scripture. :swoon:

[LivingWordUnity]

Your opinions are not proof either.I give quotes from the Bible and quotes from the Early Church fathers. I was not alive when these were originally written.


Sola Scriptura merely means that tradition is subject to scripture. Scripture is God's manual lovingly given to us for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.
And, no, I am getting into a debate with you about tradition versus scripture. :swoon:The Tradition taught by the Catholic Church is not in conflict with Scripture. It is important to distinguish the difference between Tradition (with a big "T") and traditions (with a small "t"). Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it:


II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 (http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/81.htm');) "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 (http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/83.htm');) The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
.