Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[Veritas41]

You have just proven my point here!
I’m confused – I’m not sure how I was proving your point with the example of the university students who admitted to the truth of Christianity while not wanting to convert because they didn’t want to change their lives. You stated in the post I was responding to that I had a flawed argument in asking which Bible should a person consider the true, complete Bible, and your response was:
"The atheists argue the same:

Which god should we worship, Bhudda?, Thor?, Allah?, or one of the other thousand gods that have been worshipped?

The premise is deeply flawed, for it assumes that people are inherently good, seekers of truth. Not so! We are fallen! The bible says that “no one seeks God”
No one seeks God unless God is drawing that person to Himself (John 6:65), but that doesn’t mean someone can’t use their faculty of reason to examine evidence and compare to see what is true/isn’t true. So the question remains: how does a seeker determine which Bible is the true, complete Bible?
I don’t believe that God gives only part of what saves a person. God’s grace of regeneration causes the elect person to hunger for the truth, and God provides the Truth to that regenerated person who, because of regeneration, is completely receptive to it.
**I don’t believe God gives “part” either. God gives grace, which is what saves us, and we respond to that grace by cooperating with it or rejecting it. God doesn’t wave a magic wand over the regenerated soul so that it immediately knows and recognizes all truth. There are two perfect examples of this in the New Testament: Acts 18:24-26 (a Jew named Apollos, “a learned man with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures” has to have “the way of God more adequately” explained to him) and in Acts 8:26-31 (when the apostle Philip is sent by God to explain a passage of Scripture to the Ethiopian euncuh). It even says in 2 Peter 3:16 “He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things *that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” ***That is probably why St. Paul admonished Timothy, “Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. *Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and our hearers.” *1 Tim 4:15-16) Paul didn’t tell Timothy to pass out Scriptures and let people read and interpret them on their own, which tells me God doesn’t intend for us to just read the Bible in order to know and understand the truth.

**(It was studying the Bible that led me to realize the Bible isn’t all we need to understand it. I studied on my own, participated in church Bible studies, and over time I realized that I had to have knowledge *apart from the Bible ***(the original languages it was written in, knowledge of the cultural settings, the geography of the region, etc.) to more fully understand what was *in *the Bible.)

**We have to be taught by others, which is why Jesus left us an infallible teaching authority within the Church (Matthew 16) You believe all truth is contained in the Bible (even though that is taught nowhere in the Bible) and so all a person has to do is read the Bible and they will know all the truth. And again, this is problematic because we have 3 different Bibles out there, all with different numbers of books in them, so how do we know, *from the Bible alone, ***since you don’t accept any outside authority, which Bible is the “true” Bible, the one we should follow?

Jesus said,“By their fruit you will know them.” **That’s not really an answer. If by that you mean the Christian virtues they exhibit in their lives (which is what “fruit” is), I have met many very fine Christians who had major disagreements over the interpretation of various Scriptures and had completely opposite understandings of various doctrines. Virtue in itself doesn’t guarantee infallibility, that’s why it has to be a *gift ***of the Holy Spirit

 

[Veritas41]

Do all RC’s believe that it is wrong to use birth control? To divorce? To have sex before marriage? Are all those people in the RCC who disagree with Rome on these issues, heretics and schismatics?

no not all do – the Church doesn’t control people’s minds and wills. She simply hands down the truth given by Christ to the apostles. As John Paul II said, “the Church doesn’t impose; she proposes” In this country, many Catholics are ignorant of Church teaching on contraception because priests don’t talk about it in the pulpit and most Catholics in this country use it. For those who know the teaching and dissent from it, they are heretics – for those who are ignorant, they aren’t formal heretics because to be a formal heretic you have to know what the truth is in the first place. This is another reason to believe the Catholic Church is true. Up until 1930 ALL Christian churches condemned the use of contraceptives. ONLY the Catholic Church maintains that historic Christian teaching (read the original Protestant Reformers–Luther and Calvin-- they both condemned contraception). Why? If the Catholic Church is in league with the devil and teaches all kinds of unbiblical doctrines why in the world would it maintain its teaching (especially considering Protestants frequently accuse the Catholic Church of “changing” and “adding” doctrines over the centuries). Also the case with the indissolubility of marriage. Not a popular teaching, but it’s true, Jesus taught it, so the Church can’t change it. Yes, we do have schismatic Catholics – traditionalists who claim Vatican II wasn’t a valid council and some who say we haven’t had a valid pope since Pope Pius XII or whoever their favorite pope was… and wacko feminists who “ordain” women priests and bishops…the list goes on…but the Church teaching remains the same no matter how nutty some Catholics are (heresy means to dissent from teaching; schism is to dissent from authority) And how to explain the consistently pro-life teaching of the Catholic Church? All of the mainline Protestant churches have caved in to some degree on abortion --allowing it for “hard cases” or just leaving it up to the woman to decide. Evangelical Protestants vary – some are against all abortions, some are for allowing it only for “hard cases” --not all the churches are clear on their stand. But the Catholic Church opposes abortion in all instances, upholding the absolute sanctity of human life. Strange position for a church in league with the devil to hold. And also the issue of ordination of women. The Church has consistently taught that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, yet even many evangelical churches allow women pastors, elders and deacons, even though there is no Scriptural basis for this. Like you said in another post, “by their fruits you will know them.” The doctrinal stands of the Catholic Church make no sense unless it really is the true Church.

 

[Veritas41]

If you are led by God, you will recognize error by its conflict with the bible. It is unreasonable to look for infallible teachings from any source that cannot provide it.

That’s my point – how do we know we are really being led by God and not being misled by our own pride or ignorance? Baptists think infant baptism is unbiblical – they don’t see it anywhere in the Bible, but Presbyterians do. Church of Christ members believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, as well as Anglicans and Lutherans. Presbyterians and Baptists don’t. Who’s right and who’s wrong and how do you know? All are appealing to Scripture for their beliefs.

The Bible calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth, and Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16 that whatever he bound on earth would receive a reciprocal binding in heaven – can God ratify error? In Matthew 23:1-3 Jesus tells His listeners to “obey” and “do everything” the Pharisees tell them to do, but don’t follow their hypocritical example,and then he goes on to blast the Pharisees. Strange. What’s the reason for that? Why doesn’t Jesus just tell them to read the Scriptures for themselves and forget the Pharisees? He gives the answer in verse 2, “The teachers of the law and thePharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” Look through the entire OT, and you won’t find a single reference to “Moses’ seat.” It comes from Jewish oral Tradition, and Jesus is referring to it, and using it to tell His listeners that they should obey the teaching of the Pharisees because they have teaching authority from God – “Moses’ seat.” The moral character of the Pharisees is irrelevant to their teaching authority, because God guards the truth even through wicked men. In John 11 it tells us that Caiaphas, the High Priest, uttered prophecy *because he was high priest that year *at the moment he was approving the greatest crime in history, the murder of Christ. Prophecy is of the Holy Spirit, and it is infallible, and it can be uttered through a most despicable man as Caiaphas. God had established “Moses’ seat” – the teaching authority–for His Old Covenant people, and He has established the chair of Peter (Matthew 16) for His New Covenant people, the Church. The Jews in the Old Covenant had Scriptures, but they also had a teaching authority to interpret and teach them – why would that be any less necessary in the New Covenant? People, even saved by the grace of God, are still prone to error in understanding God’s revelation. Nowhere in the Bible does it say there is no infallible authority outside of the Bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Nick-

Several Protestant apologists have argued that in Acts 17:11, one finds clear support that the Bible is the sole and final authority. This is ironic, because the passage in question proves exactly the opposite.

In Acts 17:2, we learn that in Thessalonica, Paul not only read from scripture, but he also “reasoned”, that is, debated with the Jews from the scriptures. He attempted to convince them that the Christ had to suffer. In other words, Paul was interpreting the Old Testament in an effort to show that the messiah of their scriptures is Jesus of the New Covenant. (Acts 17:5-9) Regrettably, only “some” were persuaded by Paul’s explanation.

What did the Jews in Thessalonica reject? They did not reject the veracity or usefulness of scripture. Nor did they reject messianic prophecies. They rejected Paul’s interpretation of scripture which supported his claim that Jesus was the messiah. In short, like the Jews whom Jesus admonished in John 5:39, they were ***sola scriptura ***men who rejected the Word Who is God, Jesus, based upon their individual interpretation of the Word of God!

The Jews of Berea, on the other hand, “received the message [Paul’s preaching] with great eagerness.” (Acts 17:11) They “examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11) with an openness to accept a new revelation. That new revelation was not the Bible, but Paul’s oral teaching – for his preaching was “the word of God”. (Acts 17:13) The faith of the “many” mentioned in Acts 17:12 who accepted Christ in Berea wasn’t based on sola scriptura, but on their acceptance of Paul’s interpretation of the Old Testament in light of the fullness of God’s revelation, Jesus Christ.

It is the Church, not the individual believer, that properly interprets the Word of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I were that islander, I might notice that there are three separate accounts of the confession of Peter, that Jesus is Christ, the Messiah:

Matt. 16:13-20

Mark 8:27-30

Luke 9:18-21

In each of these passages, Jesus begins and ends the disscussion by referring to Himself. The whole point of these passages is not the primacy of Peter, but the primacy of Christ.

If I only needed one good reason to reject the authority of Rome, it is the way human beings are exalted even by intentionally taking the focus away from the glory of God in order to honor men… as the CC does with the three passages above.

Jesus establishes the primacy of Peter in the Church.

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter [kepha], and on this rock [kepha] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

+++

If I were a little lost sheep, alone on an island, I would be looking for the guy with the keys to the kingdom and the shepherd’s crook in his hand - Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

He’s the one Jesus left in charge until His return.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Much has been made (in this thread) about “doctrinal development” and John Henry Cardinal Newman. Unfortunately for the islander, who only has a bible and no tradition or “doctrinal development” by the “infallible teaching authority” there are several teachings that the islander would completely lack. To name a few:

1. The teaching of a papacy.
2. The teaching of apostolic succession (as Rome defines it).
3. The teaching that there is no salvation outside of the RCC.
4. The teaching that Mary was perfectly sinless from conception to death.
5. The teaching that Rome teaches infallibly.
6. The teaching of purgatory.
7. The teaching of indulgences.

Each and everyone of these doctrines can be found in or proven from scripture. How much time do you have?

Seriously, start a new thread beginning with the doctrine that really grates on you the most. I’ll be there. Oh, bring your bible…you’re gonna need it!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Besides, the islander doesn’t need to find all those doctrines there. Once he (she?) finds the authority of the Church as the “Pillar and ground of Truth”, the rest will follow in due course.

He shoots…he scooooooooooooooooores!

Actually, your point is brilliant.

The Ethiopian eunuch was an islander who could not understand the scriptures he was reading. Phillip, an Apostle of the Church, interpreted the Bible for him just as Paul did for the Bereans.

Find the Church, and you will find everything else. Only there will you find the Body and Blood of Jesus in the sacrament.

 

[buffalo]

Not authority, but evangelization.

 

[buffalo]

Much has been made (in this thread) about “doctrinal development” and John Henry Cardinal Newman. Unfortunately for the islander, who only has a bible and no tradition or “doctrinal development” by the “infallible teaching authority” there are several teachings that the islander would completely lack. To name a few:

1. The teaching of a papacy.
2. The teaching of apostolic succession (as Rome defines it).
3. The teaching that there is no salvation outside of the RCC.
4. The teaching that Mary was perfectly sinless from conception to death.
5. The teaching that Rome teaches infallibly.
6. The teaching of purgatory.
7. The teaching of indulgences.

He had a Catechism.

 

[Nick_Jones]

It is the Church, not the individual believer, that properly interprets the Word of God.

That’s not what the text says. If it is the church that properly interprets the Word of God, then the text would read something like this:

They examined the CCC every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Each and everyone of these doctrines can be found in or proven from scripture. How much time do you have?

Seriously, start a new thread beginning with the doctrine that really grates on you the most. I’ll be there. Oh, bring your bible…you’re gonna need it!

Give the U.S. Supreme Court enough time and it will find not only a right to abortion in the Constitution, but also a right of homosexuals to marry. Clever people seem to find what they need to find… if they want it enough.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Do you even know how we got the Bible? It was through the Catholic Church.

This quote would be hilarious if not for the horrible persecution by the Catholic Church in order to keep the bible out of the hands of the common people.

Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:

… to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to be explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.
Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Do you even know how we got the Bible? It was through the Catholic Church.

This quote would be hilarious if not for the horrible persecution by the Catholic Church in order to keep the bible out of the hands of the common people.

Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:

… to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to be explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.
Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

 

[Nick_Jones]

He shoots…he scooooooooooooooooores!

Actually, your point is brilliant.

The Ethiopian eunuch was an islander who could not understand the scriptures he was reading. Phillip, an Apostle of the Church, interpreted the Bible for him just as Paul did for the Bereans.

Find the Church, and you will find everything else. Only there will you find the Body and Blood of Jesus in the sacrament.

On this very issue, I found the following quote from a RC apologist on a RC web site:

What is conspicuously missing in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the need for a single unified interpretation authority such as that provided by the Catholic Church teaching magisterium. Without a Holy Spirit-inspired interpretation people can come up with all kinds of conflicting interpretations, which is exactly what we observe in the various Protestant denominations and Protestant systems of theology.

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)

In order to understand the scriptures someone must instruct. But the question is, who is qualified to do so? If the scripture is all that is needed then why do we need people to interpret it and to instruct others? And why do the various Protestant interpretations contradict? If there is to be an authoritative interpretation it must be from a single Spirit-inspired source and that source is the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This attempt to refute sola scriptura shows a misunderstanding of what is meant by sola scriptura. Scripture alone doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, are infallible interpreters of the bible and that we don’t need anyone to instruct us on the meaning of scripture. It means that our rule of faith is the scriptures alone; we are bound by all of the teachings in the bible and not bound by any teachings that are found outside of the bible. Now I’ll re-phrase this same quote to show how the RCC has **simply assumed **itself to be the solution to bible interpretation:

What is conspicuously missing in the doctrine of Sola Ecclesia (The RC magisterium alone) is the need for a single unified infallible church selection authority to guide individuals to the one church established by Christ. Without a Holy Spirit-inspired infallible church selection authority people will come up with all kinds of conflicting ideas as to which church is the one church established by Jesus, which is exactly what we observe in the various RC and Protestant denominations’ systems of theology.

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone with infallible teaching authority explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)

In order to understand the scriptures someone with infallible teaching authority must instruct. But the question is, which “church” is qualified to do so? If the scripture is all that is needed then why do we need an authoritative infallible church to interpret it and to instruct others? And why do several doctrines of the various RC and Protestant denominations contradict the scriptures? If there is to be an authoritative and infallible interpretation it must be from a single Spirit-inspired infallible church and that requires a single unified infallible church selection authority to infallibly lead us to the one true church. But where in the scriptures do we find who, what, and where, this single unified infallible church selection authority might be? And since my own interpretation of scripture is not trustworthy, who should I trust to be my infallible guide to the single unified infallible church selection authority?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nick-

I’m quite happy to be corrected if I have made an error. Since the example of the Ethiopian eunuch is used frequently, I’m interested to learn more about why it is being used incorrectly.

Therefore, please be so kind as to provide the source of your quotation. If it turns out the site is from a reputable author, then by all means, I will hang that argument on the wall in my armory…it has served me faithfully and deserves a place of honor for all the battles it has seen me through.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is conspicuously missing in the doctrine of Sola Ecclesia (The RC magisterium alone) is the need for a single unified infallible church selection authority to guide individuals to the one church established by Christ. Without a Holy Spirit-inspired infallible church selection authority people will come up with all kinds of conflicting ideas as to which church is the one church established by Jesus, which is exactly what we observe in the various RC and Protestant denominations’ systems of theology.

Whoever wrote this grossly misunderstands the Catholic Church. “RC Magisterium alone”? Who holds that doctrine? It is Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition + the Magisterium = three strands of a cord that are not easily broken.

As for a “selection authority”, this is not “conspicuously missing” as has been alleged. In the year 110 A.D., St. Ignatius of Antioch pointed the way for identifying the true Church in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. He wrote:

1. You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.

The solution to finding the true Church is to find the Bishops who are successors to the Apostles. Find Peter. There is the Church.

 

[Nick_Jones]

The solution to finding the true Church is to find the Bishops who are successors to the Apostles. Find Peter. There is the Church.

And the solution to finding the Bishops who are successors to the Apostles is…?

 

[tequilamac]

And the solution to finding the Bishops who are successors to the Apostles is…?

Here are a few:

Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings may be held as echoes of genuine Apostolic teaching. Though restricted by some to those who were actually disciples of the Apostles, the term applies by extension to certain writers who were previously believed to have been such, and virtually embraces all the remains of primitive Christian literature antedating the great apologies of the second century, and forming the link of tradition that binds these latter writings to those of the New Testament.

The list of Fathers included under this title has varied, literary criticism having removed some who were formerly considered as second-century writers, while the publication (Constantinople, 1883) of the Didache has added one to the list. Chief in importance are the three first-century Bishops: St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, of whose intimate personal relations with the Apostles there is no doubt. **Clement, Bishop of Rome and third successor of St. Peter in the Papacy, “had seen the blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] and had been conversant with them” **(Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, iii, 3). Ignatius was the second successor of St. Peter in the See of Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 36) and during his life in that centre of Christian activity may have met with others of the Apostolic band. An accepted tradition, substantiated by the similarity of Ignatius’s thought with the ideas of the Johannine writings, declares him a disciple of St. John. Polycarp was “instructed by Apostles” (Irenaeus, op. cit., III, iii, 4) and had been a disciple of St. John (Eusebius, op. cit., III, 36; V, 20) whose contemporary he was for nearly twenty years.

 

[Veritas41]

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

That verse simply says they searched the Scriptures to verify what Paul was saying. I’m sure they were checking the Old Testament prophecies to see if what Paul said about Jesus fulfilled them. But this still doesn’t say that the Bible is the *only *source of revelation/truth.

Matthew 2:23 contains a prophecy of Christ found nowhere in the OT – it is from Jewish oral Tradition

Matthew 23:1-2 Jesus draws from Jewish Tradition ("Moses’ seat is mentioned nowhere in the OT) and tells His listeners to obey the teaching of the Pharisees – he doesn’t tell them to find all truth in the Scriptures

1 Corinthians 10:4, “for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” Nowhere in the OT does it mention the rock accompanying the wandering Israelites, rather that comes from Jewish Tradition

Jude 1:9 recounts a dispute over the body of Moses between St. Michael and Satan – again, this is from Tradition, not OT Scripture

2 Timothy 1:13-14, “What you *heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, *with faith and love in Jesus Christ. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” Paul is tellig Timothy to hold to his oral teachings, not just Scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brothers, stand firm and *hold to the teachings passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” *Paul is holding is oral teaching on an equal plane as his written letters, which were Scripture.

 

[tequilamac]

And the solution to finding the Bishops who are successors to the Apostles is…?

Here are a few more along with some of their writings. To check out the accuracy, any decent non religious European and world history textbook can verify it for you. I mean don’t take our word for it. Even Luther didn’t have the stones to deny these men their place in the sun.

Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]

**
Alexander of Lycopolis **

**
Ambrose (340-397)** [SAINT] [DOCTOR]

Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)

**
Archelaus**

**Aristides the Philosopher **

**
Arnobius **

**Athanasius [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Athenagoras **

**Augustine of Hippo [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Bardesanes (154-222) **

**Barnabas [SAINT] **

**Basil the Great [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **
**
Caius **

**Clement of Alexandria [SAINT] **
**Clement of Rome [SAINT] **

**Commodianus **

**Cyprian of Carthage [SAINT] **

**Cyril of Jerusalem [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **
**Dionysius of Rome [SAINT] **

**Dionysius the Great **

**
Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) **[SAINT] [DOCTOR]​

**
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340) **

**
Gennadius of Marseilles **

**Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604) **[SAINT] [DOCTOR]

**Gregory Nazianzen [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Gregory of Nyssa [SAINT] **

**Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT] **
**
Hermas **

**Hilary of Poitiers [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Hippolytus [SAINT] **

• The Refutation of All Heresies
• The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Exegetical
• Expository Treatise Against the Jews
• Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe
• Against the Heresy of Noetus
• Discourse on the Holy Theophany
• The Antichrist
• Appendix

**Ignatius of Antioch [SAINT] **

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians

**Irenaeus of Lyons [SAINT] **

**Jerome [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

• Letters
• The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
• To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem
• The Dialogue Against the Luciferians

**John of Damascus [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435) **

• On the Incarnation of the Lord (Against Nestorius)

**John Chrysostom [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**
Julius Africanus **

**Justin Martyr [SAINT] **

**Lactantius **

**Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461) [SAINT] [DOCTOR] **

**Malchion **

**Mar Jacob (452-521) **

**
Mathetes **

**Methodius **

**
Minucius Felix **

**Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490) **

**
Novatian **

**
Origen **

**Pamphilus [SAINT] **

**Papias [SAINT] **

**Peter of Alexandria [SAINT] **

**Polycarp [SAINT] **

Rufinus

**Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450) **

**
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447) **

**Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420) **

**
Tatian **

**Tertullian **

**
Theodoret **
** - Counter-Statements to Cyril’s 12 Anathemas against Nestorius **

**
Theodotus **

**Theophilus **

**Venantius **

**Victorinus [SAINT] **

**Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450) [SAINT] **

Not all were Bishops but most were. Others held various positions within the infant church. Some such as Nestorius held erroneous doctrines.
newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm