Bible or Bible+Apostolic Oral Tradition MOOT

  • Thread starter Thread starter LetsObeyChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to read the words spoken by the Successors of the apostles dig into the writings of the Church Fathers, Bishops and Popes. If you want to hear the teachings of the successors of the apostles with your own ears go to a Mass celebrated by a Bishop or the Pope. Canonical Scriptures are only those writings inspired by the Holy Spirit produce by the hand of someone who saw and heard Christ with their own eyes and ears. After the Death of the apostle John new Canonical Scriptures were no longer possible.
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
I agree. A non-Christian who picked up the Bible without any external source helping him to understand it will not grasp the concept of Trinity; nowhere is it explicitly taught in the Bible! The Trinitarian doctrine, in fact, is one of Sacred Tradition of the Church!

i.e.:
nowhere is it in the Bible said that:
  1. God is One
  2. God is Three.
  3. The two facts above are not contradictory, God is Three by not dividing the substance, God is One yet Three Persons, distinct and separate; again, this does NOT separate the One Substance of One God.
This is Sacred Tradition, people! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This understanding is completely in error. The best treatise on the Trinity that I have seen is Against Praxeas, written by Tertullian in the second or third century, in which he drew his understanding of the Trinity entirely from the Scriptures. Here are a few quotes:

Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. (chapter 5)

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself.… You must bring forth the proof which I require of you-one like my own; that is, (you must prove to me) that the Scriptures show the Son and the Father to be the same, just as on our side the Father and the Son are demonstrated to be distinct;… when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith…. These are a few testimonies out of many; for we do not pretend to bring up all the passages of Scripture, because we have a tolerably large accumulation of them in the various heads of our subject… (chapter 11)

… For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit… (chapter 13)

… Surely even these things could not have been believed even of the Son of God, unless they had been given us in the Scriptures (chapter 16)

If it was as the Father, Praxeas must tell us how Christ, who had been so long time with them, could have possibly ever been (I will not say understood, but even) supposed to have been the Father. He is clearly defined to us in all Scriptures-in the Old Testament as the Christ of God, in the New Testament as the Son of God. (chapter 23)

Let us be content with saying that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let this suffice, because the Scriptures have told us so much. For even the apostle, to his declaration-which he makes not without feeling the weight of it-that “Christ died,” immediately adds, “according to the Scriptures,” in order that he may alleviate the harshness of the statement by the authority of the Scriptures (chapter 24)

The Son, then, both dies and rises again, according to the Scriptures. (chapter 30)
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
Genuine apostolic oral tradition does not exist today apart from our Bibles.
Click to expand...
Big “T” Tradition is not necessarily “apostolic”. It’s usually referred to as “sacred” Tradition and may or may not be apostolic. A great example of Sacred Tradition that did not come from the apostles and is not found in scripture but certainly was revealed by the holy Spirit to some to be taught to the rest of us is the canon of Scripture.
Click to expand...
 
If a Christian had to choose between “sola scriptura” and “sola traditio,” the latter would make more sense in light of Catholic Church history. Tradition (Big T) includes both oral and written teaching. The Bible is only a part of Church Tradition, albeit a very significant part. Luther, like all Protestants, to one extent or another, placed inordinate reliance on individuals to interpret Holy Scripture. It is clear from the Gospels themselves that oral teaching and Tradition were the primary means of handing on the Faith. Jesus instructed His disciples to go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He did not say to sit down and compile all His teachings in written form. In fact, St. John the Apostle stated the opposite: there are not enough books to contain all of Our Lord’s teachings and actions. Nowhere does the Bible claim that the Bible is the sole authority for Christian teaching. Why do Protestants not take Jesus at His word when he clearly designates St. Peter as the human head of His Church or when Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will guide His Church and that the gates of hell will never prevail? Most Protestants lack the Christian humility to submit to lawful Church authority as devised by Christ Himself, that is, the pope and bishops, the only legitimate successors of the apostles. I highly recommend the book, *Where We Got the Bible, *by Henry G. Graham, a Calvinist minister who ultimately became a Catholic bishop. By the way, the correct name of the only Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. Roman or Latin is the largest of some 23 different rites within the Catholic or Universal Church.
 
larryo said:
…take Jesus at His word when he clearly designates St. Peter as the human head of His Church ….
Click to expand...

An utterly false statement. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus Himself is the Head of His Church. Nowhere do they say anything of the sort regarding Peter. If someone tells you that black is white, or that the moon is made of cheese, and you go on and believe it, that doesn’t make it true. The same with the above statement. A few of the Scriptures that are often mis-used in an attempt to promote the above claim are Matthew 16.18, and John 21.15-22. But when the passages are thoroughly looked into, they neither say or imply anything of the sort.
 
Originally Posted by larryo
…take Jesus at His word when he clearly designates St. Peter as the human head of His Church ….
40.png
jmgainor:
An utterly false statement. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus Himself is the Head of His Church. Nowhere do they say anything of the sort regarding Peter. If someone tells you that black is white, or that the moon is made of cheese, and you go on and believe it, that doesn’t make it true. The same with the above statement. A few of the Scriptures that are often mis-used in an attempt to promote the above claim are Matthew 16.18, and John 21.15-22. But when the passages are thoroughly looked into, they neither say or imply anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
When one says that Peter was the “head” of the Church they aren’t referring to the same sort of head-ship that belongs to Jesus. Jesus is the Head of the Body. Peter did not hold that position. Peter was the visible leader of the Chrisitian people on earth in the visible absence of Jesus. He preached and taught with the authority of Jesus (Matt 16:18), under the guidance of the holy Spirit.
Jesus is the Head (big “H”). His position is not merely a position of leadership. Peter’s WAS a position of leadership. A huge difference. Same word, different meaning.
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Originally Posted by larryo
…take Jesus at His word when he clearly designates St. Peter as the human head of His Church ….

When one says that Peter was the “head” of the Church they aren’t referring to the same sort of head-ship that belongs to Jesus. Jesus is the Head of the Body. Peter did not hold that position. Peter was the visible leader of the Chrisitian people on earth in the visible absence of Jesus. He preached and taught with the authority of Jesus (Matt 16:18), under the guidance of the holy Spirit.
Jesus is the Head (big “H”). His position is not merely a position of leadership. Peter’s WAS a position of leadership. A huge difference. Same word, different meaning.
Click to expand...
Not so! It is but an attempt to exalt a man to the place of pre-eminence that belongs to Christ. It requires that faith be placed in the man rather than (or in addition to) Christ. Peter himself exhorted God’s pastors to not be “lords over God’s heritage, but examples to the flock”. Anyone who is claimed to be the ‘head’ over the Church is therefore also assumed to be its lord. The teaching is simply a tool to subject the minds and hearts of the people, through deceit and self-exaltation, to the papacy, rather than to lift them to Christ. If the office had a track record of faithfulness to Christ and the Gospel that would merit such trust, its claim might stand. But it doesn’t.
 
40.png
jmgainor:
Not so! It is but an attempt to exalt a man to the place of pre-eminence that belongs to Christ.
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s not, as I explained in my previous post. However, if you wish to believe that Catholic teaching is that the Headship of Jesus is the same thing as the headship of Peter I guess that’s what you’ll have to believe. The two are essentially different, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.
 
jmgainor,

Your claim about exalting Peter to a position that is only to be held by Christ is at best severly misguided. For you to make such a claim demonstrates that you are uninformed about Catholic teaching on Peter and the Papacy. Jesus, “and no one else”, placed Peter in a position of primacy. In doing so, Jesus did not wish him or any of the apostles to “Lord” their authority over others. Moreover, Catholics do not claim that Jesus made Peter equal to Himself. You should know better than to say such a thing.

Try reading the NT for Catholic teaching and not for the purpose of anti-Catholic teaching. You will notice that the NT context fits Catholic teaching much better than any other. The problem is you must first “know” Catholic teaching and from whence it comes. If all you do is rely upon anti-Catholic sources, you will never know the truth. If you would like a couple of excellent websites that explore these and most other issues of Christian teaching, try jamesakin.com or ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM

Both you and L.O.C. demonstrate an anti-Catholic sentiment that cannot be justified. I mean no disrespect to either of you, but your statements are highly prejudiced and lack the serious thought and research needed to be credible. It’s one thing to ask a question of another about their faith and to explore issues. It is quite another to come into an issue with a “know it all attitude” about another’s beliefs when it is clear that you do not know the teachings or the biblical reasons for them. When someone does this, it merely aggravates the other side and does nothing to promote understanding. It is, at best, un-Christian to engage another party in this fashion, and it will usually encourage the other party to respond in like kind.

Since both of you subscribe to “Sola Scriptura” and have your own views on what scripture means, it seems to me that you should be much more sympathetic and understanding of Catholic interpretation of scripture. Afterall, there are numerous interpretations among, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Baptists, and others that do not agree with one another. I do not see the same aggressive and uninformed attacks leveled by non-Catholics against other non-Catholics. It seems to me that non-Catholics should extend the same level of deference to Catholics even though they may disagree with us.
 
Catholic4aReasn said:
Actually, it’s not, as I explained in my previous post. However, if you wish to believe that Catholic teaching is that the Headship of Jesus is the same thing as the headship of Peter I guess that’s what you’ll have to believe. The two are essentially different, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

The Scriptures teach clearly that Jesus is the Head of His Church. That cannot be disputed. You claimed that Jesus clearly designated Peter as the human head of His Church. To my knowledge He did not, and that statement cannot be supported. You are free to believe as you wish. But the truth is precious, and I will defend it when I see it come under attack. There is no “headship of Peter” regarding the Church, much less that any such thing might be in any way either compared or contrasted to the Headship of Christ. Peter was considered to be the head of his wife in the marital relationship, but had no such position in the Church.
 
40.png
LetsObeyChrist:
You cannot prove me wrong by showing it because it don’t exist.
Click to expand...
You are trying to prove us wrong. Why? Disproving Catholicism will leave us only 32k+ choices. If you have the truth, lay it out there and it will prove itself.

Pray for God’s (not LOC’s) will for Catholics.
 
40.png
jmgainor:
An utterly false statement. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus Himself is the Head of His Church. Nowhere do they say anything of the sort regarding Peter. If someone tells you that black is white, or that the moon is made of cheese, and you go on and believe it, that doesn’t make it true. The same with the above statement. A few of the Scriptures that are often mis-used in an attempt to promote the above claim are Matthew 16.18, and John 21.15-22. But when the passages are thoroughly looked into, they neither say or imply anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
It never sees to amaze me how many people use the same basic logic of “because I said so!” That may work with children, but begging the question doesn’t fly much with me. Re-read this post
“utterly false”
“Scripture’s are clear”
“black is white”
etc.

I see no arguements here, only rhetoric.

For what it’s worth, many other post the same way.
 
40.png
Pax:
jmgainor,

Your claim about exalting Peter to a position that is only to be held by Christ is at best severly misguided. For you to make such a claim demonstrates that you are uninformed about Catholic teaching on Peter and the Papacy. Jesus, “and no one else”, placed Peter in a position of primacy. In doing so, Jesus did not wish him or any of the apostles to “Lord” their authority over others. Moreover, Catholics do not claim that Jesus made Peter equal to Himself. You should know better than to say such a thing.

Try reading the NT for Catholic teaching and not for the purpose of anti-Catholic teaching. You will notice that the NT context fits Catholic teaching much better than any other. The problem is you must first “know” Catholic teaching and from whence it comes. If all you do is rely upon anti-Catholic sources, you will never know the truth. If you would like a couple of excellent websites that explore these and most other issues of Christian teaching, try jamesakin.com or ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM

Both you and L.O.C. demonstrate an anti-Catholic sentiment that cannot be justified. I mean no disrespect to either of you, but your statements are highly prejudiced and lack the serious thought and research needed to be credible. It’s one thing to ask a question of another about their faith and to explore issues. It is quite another to come into an issue with a “know it all attitude” about another’s beliefs when it is clear that you do not know the teachings or the biblical reasons for them. When someone does this, it merely aggravates the other side and does nothing to promote understanding. It is, at best, un-Christian to engage another party in this fashion, and it will usually encourage the other party to respond in like kind.

Since both of you subscribe to “Sola Scriptura” and have your own views on what scripture means, it seems to me that you should be much more sympathetic and understanding of Catholic interpretation of scripture. Afterall, there are numerous interpretations among, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Baptists, and others that do not agree with one another. I do not see the same aggressive and uninformed attacks leveled by non-Catholics against other non-Catholics. It seems to me that non-Catholics should extend the same level of deference to Catholics even though they may disagree with us.
Click to expand...
Pax,

I have likely spent more time than yourself in “serious thought and research” in order to arrive at my understanding of these matters. Any statements I make I am fully prepared to support with scriptural and historical documentation and proof. Are you prepared to do the same. You would be well advised to do your own research and provide some substantiation for your own claims ere you begin to tell me that I am misguided and uninformed about the subject. You have no idea what I “subscribe to”, and you would do well to present some matter on which you are prepared to engage in discussion, before you attempt to pigeon-hole me into something you think you are prepared to attack. I stand by my statements in the post you responded to. And nothing you’ve presented has provided any reason for me to change my views. If you think you can present anything meaningful and/or persuasive to support your views, lets have it.
 
I think the debate sola scruptura vs. Scripture AND Tradition is moot if you’re ultimately trying to find the basis of Christian authority. Simply put, it’s the Church. THAT is the only authority for Christians.

I’m sure the heretics on the board will try to twist my assertion to mean that I think Scripture is somehow inferior, or not inerrant, but that’s simply not the case. Christ established a Church, not a publishing company or a radio station. Only the aggresively ignorant can deny it.
 
I have likely spent more time than yourself in “serious thought and research” in order to arrive at my understanding of these matters. Any statements I make I am fully prepared to support with scriptural and historical documentation and proof.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty funny considering the link in your sig.

You go ahead and “research” anti-Catholic sites. We’ll dive into Scripture and history. Thanks.
 
jmgainor,

I find it odd how SURE you are of YOUR interpretation of biblical passages. Clearly you are much smarter than me and many others that post regularly here. It also seems strange that you seem unable to even acknowledge that another interpretation (other than yours) could have any merit at all. Apparantly the Holy Spirit has taken a specific liking to you and to you only.

Thank God I have the Catholic Church created by Jesus Christ to help me interpret scripture. Unfortunately, the only revelation the Holy Spirit has made to me is awareness of the TRUTH that can be found only in the Catholic Church.

Joel
 
posted by jmgainor
There is no “headship of Peter” regarding the Church, much less that any such thing might be in any way either compared or contrasted to the Headship of Christ. Peter was considered to be the head of his wife in the marital relationship, but had no such position in the Church.
Click to expand...
So what is your interpretation of Scripture of Jesus giving Peter the keys to His Kingdom?
 
40.png
jmgainor:
Pax,

I have likely spent more time than yourself in “serious thought and research” in order to arrive at my understanding of these matters. Any statements I make I am fully prepared to support with scriptural and historical documentation and proof. Are you prepared to do the same. You would be well advised to do your own research and provide some substantiation for your own claims ere you begin to tell me that I am misguided and uninformed about the subject. You have no idea what I “subscribe to”, and you would do well to present some matter on which you are prepared to engage in discussion, before you attempt to pigeon-hole me into something you think you are prepared to attack. I stand by my statements in the post you responded to. And nothing you’ve presented has provided any reason for me to change my views. If you think you can present anything meaningful and/or persuasive to support your views, lets have it.
Click to expand...
Now this is precisely what I am referring to in my post. I am not about to get into a debate on your credentials or mine. That really isn’t the point and it really doesn’t matter. I know many highly intelligent people with PHD’s and other letters after their names that don’t even believe in God. Your problem is that you come into the discussion with preconceived ideas and an attitude. I am not trying to convince you of a particular conclusion on teaching in my post. Your conversion or mine has always depended upon the Holy Spirit. My point involves openess, attitude, and disposition of the heart. I cannot read your mind or heart but I can read your posts. What is coming through in your posts is the kind of thing that simply starts a useless theological food fight.

I’ve had some experience on these boards. You can check out all my posts and you will see that I have given a number of carefully thought out defenses along with many other contributors that are more able than I. Unfortunately, the responses we get from “anti-Catholics” are often shallow brush-offs or a quick shift to another criticism without admitting they were wrong on the prior point. No Christian should be “anti-Catholic.” To disagree is one thing, but we are not the enemy. We may have our differences, but as brothers and sisters in Christ we are allies against the common enemy of Satan.

I can argue all day long and be argumentative all through the night. I can address every point you make and so what!!? My post is about the attitude, mind, and heart. If you are “anti-Catholic,” and you cannot accept it when knowledgeable Catholics tell you what we believe, then the problem is within you. I do not tell you that you believe in “Once Saved Always Saved” unless you tell me that. If you tell me otherwise then I do not persist in saying that you do believe it. You claim to be knowledgeable, but you make statements about Catholic teaching that Catholics do not hold. Rather than admitting that, you merely continue on. There are a number of non-Catholics on these boards that do not do this, and they take a very level headed approach in learning what we truly believe and why.

Sometimes it takes someone outside of ourselves to point out what’s coming across. That’s all I was trying to accomplish.
 
40.png
MariaG:
So what is your interpretation of Scripture of Jesus giving Peter the keys to His Kingdom?
Click to expand...
Maria,

It really is quite simple. The keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the Church—that is, to all who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The keys are the power to bind and loose, and belong to Jesus, to Whom is given all power in heaven and upon earth (Mt. 28.18). See Matthew 18.18-20, where He speaks of the Church having the power to bind and to loose, and then says that where two or three are gathered together, He is present in the midst. So, it is actually Jesus, present in the believers, Who does the binding and loosing (see John 17.26; Gal 2.20; etc.).

The earliest patristic writings bear this out also:

… For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him. … I shall send before me fine documents, to be sure, I shall carry with me excellent keys…
Tertullian, Scorpiace, Chapter X

In Tertullian’s treatise on Modesty he set forth a bit of a different view: that the keys were given to Peter alone, and not to the Church.

Here is Cyprian on the keys:
  1. Our Lord,… describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church … says to Peter: "I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church… And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven…the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops … .
    Epistle XXVI, § 1
The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock … And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven… to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.
Treatise I, § 4

Here is Origin on the keys:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? … Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
Origin’s Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, Book XII, § 11

In Book XIII of this treatise, Origin argues for some greater eminence for Peter; but nothing like a papacy.

These passages have been excerpted for brevity’s sake. Click on the links to read the full context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top