Bible or Bible+Apostolic Oral Tradition MOOT

[Michael_Howard]

I am coming into this discussion late in the game so I apologize if some of what I post has been adressed. First some Cathechism:

771 "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a* visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.*"184 The Church is at the same time:

• a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;
• the visible society and the spiritual community;
• the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches."185

These dimensions together constitute *“one complex reality *which comes together from a *human and a divine element”:186 *

The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.18

Scripture and the church cannot be seperated because as the Cathechism states Christ and the people of God form “one complex realtiy”. The church is an extension of what God did through the incarnation. The divine merged with flesh and became one reality. Just as all the fullness of the deity dwelt in bodily form, that same Godhead resides in One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic church, not churches or bodies, one only!

I think what is hard for some folks to understand simply for the fact that we tend to think of everything in newtonian terms, is that the church is

"visible but endowed with invisible realities*. "*

I think that Protestants get this mixed up often by stating that the church is “invisible” rather than visible. The Gnostic heresies and other types of heretical sects always seemed to want to make a great divide between the visible and the invisible, flesh was bad, spirit good and so on…

And for centuries the church fought these heresies especially as they concerned the nature of God. The Catholic church does not claim to be over the sacred scriptures, but only it’s servant. The Church remains it’s instrument, it’s guide, protecting and safeguarding what has been transmitted through the apostles, the apostolic gift being passed onto “trusted men” who would preserve sound doctrine. I will now divide this into two posts.

 

[Michael_Howard]

Part II…

The best example I can think of in our own culture (using my country America as an example) would be our constitution. The constitution of the United States in general terms is the glue that holds society together in an* earthly sense*.

It maintains stability and order and it’s laws are defined for all citizens of the country. People may not agree with it, but that does not change the fact that there is constitutional law.

The reason that we have a government (President the top) is to have a visible presence protecting our rights as citizens and maintain a sense of satbility and order. The constitution is held in effect by our government and the government defines the meaning of the constitution for us.

Now I hope this does not sound corny, but I think the point comes across well, Suppose after the writing and signing of the constitution of the United States of America our founding fathers copied thousands of drafts and gave each citizen their own personal copy, and then told each citizen to use their best judgement in determining what each copy means.

For one, I do not think that our counrty would exist today. I think we would see the same results as we a have seen with the Reformation. It’s an easy principle to understand when we think about it rationally and clearly. Maybe I have not said anything new here, but sometimes it’s good to re-define age old truths when things get to muddy

Mary concieved without sin pray for us

 

[SteveG]

jmgainor:

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…SNIP

Your understanding of history, the early fathers, 1st Century Jewish culture, and Catholic ecclesial understanding is so pathetic that I am not going to respond point by point to your ramblings. I am rather going to repost a series of posts from the other thread LOC started which explain these things in detail and in context. Sorry to those of you who read this already in the other thread, but I still think it covers nonse jmgainor is spouting. Hopefully it will save us all some effort in dealing with these trolls…

Something on this topic which I put together for fun in my spare time. Enjoy…

** Solo Ecclesia**
When faced with the obvious unworkability of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, many Protestants appeal to the supposed subjectivity of the Catholic authority as a defense. The most common argument is to claim something along the lines of what James White does. He accuses the Catholic side of using what he calls ‘Sola Ecclesia’, and claims , ‘That to set forth the necessity of an Infallible Church to interpret a Revelation that can not be interpreted is simply to move our cries of subjectivity back a single step.’

While this argument ignores the fact that even if true it still doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura (at best it means that both Sola Scriptura and the Catholic position are false), it raises a valid question. Is the Catholic understanding subjective in the same way Sola Scriptura is? This question is in no way outrageous and deserves a response. We must see if an evidentiary case can indeed be made for the Catholic understanding of authority.

At the outset we have to admit that this claim (as with any claim) can not be proved absolutely. Any understanding of history is, by nature, to some extent subjective. Any religious belief by definition is held by faith. But unlike Sola Scriptura, which is self contradictory and illogical on it’s face, a case can be made for the Catholic understanding. While that case is not self-refuting, nor contradictory, each reader must still weigh the evidence and judge if it can stand or not.

Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.

** The Sanhedrin**
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).
**
Evidence 1**
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.

As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.

…CONTINUED

 

[mark_a]

jmgainor:

Pax,

… subject. You have no idea what I “subscribe to”.

Well, what is it? We’ve got a good idea what you don’t “subscribe to”.

Your approach nullifies any credibility that your ideas may have.

 

[SteveG]

Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”

** Evidence 1**
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

** Evidence 2**
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

** The New Church and Authority**
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.

** Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18**
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.

** Who is the ‘YOU’**
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.

Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.

** Binding and Loosing**
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.

For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.

Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”

In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew 16
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.

**The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action**

If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?

1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?

6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;

What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

 **Evidence 2**
 The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
 
 **Evidence 3**

Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.

 **Argument 1**

Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).

 **....OK you obnoxious troll, continuing any further on the ecclesiastical structure Christ set up and intened next must take into account the role of Peter and Apostolic succession, but I don't want to hog the thread too much. If you still want to continue, I am game. As you'll see if you stay around these forums long enough, the folks here have pondered and studied these things quite a bit as well. You'll find few patsies who will buy your 'Papacy Uncovered' garbage.

**

 

[jmgainor]

Pax:

Sometimes it takes someone outside of ourselves to point out what’s coming across. That’s all I was trying to accomplish.

Pax, don’t quit trying. I’ve been around various boards a bit, and tend to aim right at the heart of the matter. No beating around the bush. It can be irksome when I see statements like "take Jesus at His word when he clearly designates St. Peter as the human head of His Church ", which I know is unsupportable from either Scripture or history and is patently false. I understand how it is to be blinded by such doctrine. I’ve spent the time to seek and search out the truth, and will share what I can while anyone is interested. Most people aren’t; but that’s fine. I’d rather know the truth than be in the dark. Out for the nite.

I tried to post a post like this a short while ago, and it seems to have been lost. Maybe this one will post.

 

[Michael_Howard]

jmgainor:

Pax, don’t quit trying. I’ve been around various boards a bit, and tend to aim right at the heart of the matter. No beating around the bush. It can be irksome when I see statements like "take Jesus at His word when he clearly designates St. Peter as the human head of His Church ", which I know is unsupportable from either Scripture or history and is patently false.*** I understand how it is to be blinded by such doctrine***. I’ve spent the time to seek and search out the truth, and will share what I can while anyone is interested. Most people aren’t; but that’s fine. I’d rather know the truth than be in the dark. Out for the nite.

I tried to post a post like this a short while ago, and it seems to have been lost. Maybe this one will post.

It’s statements like this that turn people wawy from the true God…

 

[jmgainor]

**…OK you obnoxious troll, continuing any further on the ecclesiastical structure Christ set up and intened next must take into account the role of Peter and Apostolic succession, but I don’t want to hog the thread too much. If you still want to continue, I am game. As you’ll see if you stay around these forums long enough, the folks here have pondered and studied these things quite a bit as well. You’ll find few patsies who will buy your ‘Papacy Uncovered’ garbage.
**

Steve, all your copy/paste is both meaningless—as it all off-topic, provides no interaction and discussion, and is only an attempt to steamroller a poster with a mountain of verbiage—as well as a violation of the rules of the forum. There is no need to comment on your attitude, for it speaks clearly for itself. If you ever learn to carry on an intelligent discussion that is on-topic, come back. I’ve already said I’m out for the nite, and I am.

 

[SteveG]

jmgainor:

Steve, all your copy/paste is both meaningless—as it all off-topic, provides no interaction and discussion, and is only an attempt to steamroller a poster with a mountain of verbiage—as well as a violation of the rules of the forum. There is no need to comment on your attitude, for it speaks clearly for itself. If you ever learn to carry on an intelligent discussion that is on-topic, come back. I’ve already said I’m out for the nite, and I am.

I assure you the copy/paste is of my own work and study-from an essay I have written. And unlike prooftexters, I am trying to give a context and background for understanding a topic instead of shooting off random attack lines. My attitude is usually quite good, as I think most folks on the forums would attest. It’s your attitude that incited me, though I admit that I must apologize for loosing charity.

You can claim innocence (and pretend to take the high road), but anyone who comes into a Catholic forum with a sig line of '**Papacy Uncovered The Truth will set you free**.' (linking to a papacy attack site), assuming that we are all ignorant, and in many posts assuring us that he will share the truth with us to 'correct' us, most certainly comes across as a troll. Both your tone and attitude show a lack of genuine desire to converse, despite your claims above to the contrary. And as for breaking the rules, your sig line and the link it contains already have that covered on your end.

My posts certainly are on topic and lay the foundation for any contextual discussions on the questions of authority and ecclessiology (including the papacy). You can dismiss them if you like, but anyone reading through this thread will see the relevance immediately. If YOU want to have a real discussion and attemp to carry on an intelligent discussion, I’d suggest you start by toning down the rhetoric, and trying to engage folks instead of lecturing them.

 

[SteveG]

jmgainor:

… 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.

Hopefully this is ‘on topic’ enough for you, but since you linked a study of MT 16:18 from your site (which I did read), I’ll simply link a study from www.catholic.com (the parent site of these forums) which clearly refutes your understanding…
Peter the Rock
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Peter the Rock in the early fathers
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
…This article in particular directly refutes your attempt to use the early fathers to bolster your argument. Your argument from silence is shown to be false, and some of the writers you choose to use are shown in fuller context as being in full agreement about who the rock was (Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian specifically).

I challenge anyone on this thread to read his link, then read the two Catholic answers links and see who has the better evidence and argument.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

jmgainor:

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.).

Scripture shows that the keys WERE given to Peter alone. Jesus was adressing ONLY Peter in the giving of the keys. The significance can be found in Isaiah 22:22, which would have been very familiar to Peter and the apostles. They would have recognized that Jesus was giving Peter His own authority to speak for Him in His absence, which is what the giving of keys meant in that time and culture. It means something completely different and much less significant in ours. If you check out Isaiah you’ll see that the words that Jesus spok even echoed the words spoken in the giving of the keys in Isaiah 22:22. The apostles would have recognized this too. The power of binding and loosing, which was first given to Peter ,was later extended to the apostles, but never to all believers for all time.

---

Peter and the apostles got to exercise their new authority at the Council of Jerusalem. A local gathering of Christians were in disagreement as to whether circumcision was necessary for salvation. It was decided to take the disagreement to the Church leadership. Noteworthy is what they did NOT do: they did not search the scriptures to decide for themselves what to do, they did not claim for themselves the power of binding and loosing because, after all, they too held the keys to the kingdom of heaven by virtue of being believers, and they did not break off and start their own denomination. They appealed to the ones who had the authority to render an authoritative decision.

---

After much debate Peter, as the holder of the keys, proclaimed doctrine (salvation by grace). Absolutely no one questioned his authority to do so, and his declaration put an end to the dabate. Then James, as one with the new power of binding and loosing, exercised that power by BINDING the Gentile Christians to certain “necessary” behaviors. Since we know that those requirements are no longer binding on Christians we can know that, at some point, the Church “loosed” Christians from these requirements.

---

This decision was binding, not only on the local church that was having the disagreement, but on all Christians. A letter was addressed to all of the different churches (communities of Christians) of the day. Along with the written message was sent a human being who was to give the same message by word of mouth (writings can and are often misunderstood, hence the need for an accompanying, authoritative HUMAN voice to make sure the message of the letter was not misunderstood).

---

---

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

jmgainor:

The earliest patristic writings bear this out also:

***The writings of the early Father overwhelmingly ***supported the primacy of Peter.

… 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

***It’s interesting that you used this passage to support your notion that all believers equally hold the keys. Catholic Answers uses it in support of the primacy of Peter. ***

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.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

jmgainor:

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

I see the primacy of Peter here.

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

The wording and title of this passage are a little different than what I have:

---

Cyprian of Carthage- The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition- AD 251:

---

"The Lord says to Peter; ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I wlll build my Church’…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one,. fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

---

The purpose of this letter was unity in the Church. Cyprian said that unity exists because of the “chair” of Peter. The “chair” was the position of God-given authority (Matt 23:2). Whoever occupies that “chair” [cathedra] has the authority given to Peter.
.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

jmgainor:

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

How does Origin’s opinion on the primacy of Peter differ from the papacy?

.

 

[jimmy]

As that perfectly describes Biblical tradition, it will have the following appearance:

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.-kjv

Oral teaching from Christ’s very lips which subsequently is given to the Church via the apostles:

1 Corinthians 11:24 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

This is not oral tradition. It is written down in the bible. Oral tradition is not written in the bible.

Sola scripturaists propose all-important oral tradition eventually was recorded in our Bibles.

2 Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

In other words, while it is true some apostolic oral tradition existed when Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in 51 AD, this oral teaching found its way into the 21 Bible books written after 51 AD:

All he says here is that what he has written he has allready told them about. This does not say that everything that he taught he wrote down on paper. That has not been said anywhere in the verse you provided.

1 & 2 Co (55-56); Ro (56); Lk,Eph,Phil,Col,Philemon (60); Ac,1 Tm (62); Ti, 1 Pt (64); 2 Timothy (66); 2 Pt,Heb (67); Jude (68); Jn (80); 1-3 Jn (90); Re (94).

Indeed, the Bible is quite clear it contains all necessary to the faith, 2 Tim 3:15ff.

Empirical evidence proves it is impossible literate human beings not put in written form any oral “divine teaching” they possess. No culture has done that throughout human history.

Therefore it is special pleading to argue that is precisely what the RCC has done with sayings from the very lips of Christ and His apostles.
No where does the bible say it contains everything. The bibwas not made until 382AD so that would be a false statement if any of them would have said that. Because each book by itself does not contain all that is needed, even from scripture.

 

[jimmy]

The argument is even more specious when one considers the care the RCC gave to establishing the canon. How inconsistent to render such Herculean effort lest anything apostolic be lost only to do exactly that by refusing to preserve in written form, genuine apostolic oral teaching.

Hence it is impossible we ascribe to the RCC the enormous criminal negligence and towering incompetence that is necessary to fail preserve genuine apostolic oral tradition by writing it down.

This is a dumb statement. The CC did not write the bible when they composed the canon. So you can not expect the bible to contain everything. Each book of the bible was written independant of eachother. They weren’t written with a plan.

True love of one’s fellow man would preclude the “hiding of the talent” lest others be profited thereby.

Therefore the argument Bible+apostolic oral tradition or the Bible Alone, which is better, is moot.

Genuine apostolic oral tradition does not exist today apart from our Bibles.

You did not make one valid point in your entire post. If you are going to argue a point then you hato do better than that.