Certain authors of the NT cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture...

[PRmerger]

From your point of view, what’s the history of the belief that John was boiled (unsuccessfully)?

Was it, is it, held as true by the CC according to tradition? Was it, is it a teaching of the CC?

Ah. I see the problem here. You are confusing tradition (customs, myths, legends) with Tradition (the Word of God.)

Firstly, I have never heard of this legend that St.John was boiled alive and lived.

Secondly, this is not part of Catholic teaching (i.e. doctrine).

Thirdly, I suppose Catholics are free to believe this or not believe it.

Fourthly, do you want to discuss the difference between customs of the CC
-not calling the holy men and women of the Old Testament saints. Thus, it’s just a custom that we don’t call Moses “St. Moses” or Isaiah “St. Isaiah”.
-kneeling while praying
-knowing that Mary’s parents were Sts. Joachim and Anne. iI’s just a custom handed down from the first centuries.
-making the sign of the cross before/after we pray

and Sacred Tradition?

 

[Dokimas]

Huh?

Are you trying to say that the belief that St. John was boiled in oil and lived is part of the Sacred Tradition of the CC?

museumplanet.com/tour.php/venice/tol/18

San Nicola da Tolentino - Venice, Italy
‘St. John the Apostle Boiled in Oil’ Painting

"In the Foscari Chapel ‘St. John the Apostle Boiled in Oil’ hangs over the altar. It is by an anonymous artist. St. John, the brother Apostle of James and Peter, wrote the fourth Gospel. He miraculously escaped this boiling caldron into which he had been put by the Roman Emperor Domitian. He is the patron saint of writers, theologians and all who work on books.San Nicola da Tolentino - Venice, Italy

 

[Dokimas]

Ah. I see the problem here. You are confusing tradition (customs, myths, legends) with Tradition (the Word of God.)

Firstly, I have never heard of this legend that St.John was boiled alive and lived.

Secondly, this is not part of Catholic teaching (i.e. doctrine).

Thirdly, I suppose Catholics are free to believe this or not believe it.

Fourthly, do you want to discuss the difference between customs of the CC
-not calling the holy men and women of the Old Testament saints. Thus, it’s just a custom that we don’t call Moses “St. Moses” or Isaiah “St. Isaiah”.
-kneeling while praying
-knowing that Mary’s parents were Sts. Joachim and Anne. iI’s just a custom handed down from the first centuries.
-making the sign of the cross before/after we pray

and Sacred Tradition?

So you don’t know. Okay, I’ll wait for an answer from a catholic here who has heard.

 

[PRmerger]

So you don’t know. Okay, I’ll wait for an answer from a catholic here who has heard.

Yes, I’ve never heard of this legend.

But it is most certainly NOT part of the Deposit of Faith given to us by the Apostles (boiled or otherwise. )

 

[Dokimas]

Ah. I see the problem here. You are confusing tradition (customs, myths, legends) with Tradition (the Word of God.)

Are you saying ST is part of the Word of God?

Are you saying that some of the traditions of the CC are not part of ST?

Please help me understand your understanding. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying ST is part of the Word of God?

Are you saying that some of the traditions of the CC are not part of ST?

Please help me understand your understanding. Thank you.

Yes, Sacred Tradition is part of the Word of God.

Some traditions (read this as “customs”) are not part of ST, such as kneeling while praying, not calling Moses “St. Moses”, priestly vestments, etc etc etc.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore. You seem to be like me; you’re not spending as much time on these threads. Well, good to see you. God bless you.

BTW, could you give us the history of the belief that the Apostle John was boiled in oil and lived?

Yes, Grad school is really soaking up my writing time.

The legend that St. John was boiled in oil is found in both the writings of St. Jerome and Tertullian that during the persecution of St. Dormition John was taken to Rome and was placed in a cauldron of boiling oil, outside the Latin gate, without the boiling fluid doing him any injury. De praescriptione haereticorum Tertullian ch. 36
(On the prescription of heretics)

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, Grad school is really soaking up my writing time.

The legend that St. John was boiled in oil is found in both the writings of St. Jerome and Tertullian that during the persecution of St. Dormition John was taken to Rome and was placed in a cauldron of boiling oil, outside the Latin gate, without the boiling fluid doing him any injury. De praescriptione haereticorum Tertullian ch. 36
(On the prescription of heretics)

Were St. Jerome and Tertullian catholic? Were they heretics? I’m unclear.

BTW, what are you studying in grad school?

 

[PRmerger]

Were St. Jerome and Tertullian catholic? Were they heretics? I’m unclear.

St. Jerome, being a saint, was Catholic, and definitely not a heretic. Tertullian had some non-orthodox views so is not considered to be one of the ECFs, and died a schismatic, per apologist Jimmy Akin.

You seem to be implying (perhaps I am misreading though?) that each and every theological speculation these writers made is part of the Deposit of Faith. If this is indeed your meaning, this is not correct.

 

[guanophore]

Were St. Jerome and Tertullian catholic? Were they heretics? I’m unclear.

Tertullian went in and out of espousing heresies througout his life.

That is immaterial though, from the purposes of historical data. We believe that, like other Fathers of the Church who also deviated from Church Teachings, they do faithfully represent the practices and issues of their day. For example, Tertullian captures some of the controversy about infant baptism (whether the Church should do it immediately or wait until the 8th day as was done for circumcision). His documentation of this discussion is historical evidence that the Church was baptizing infants before the NT was formed.

 

[Dokimas]

Tertullian went in and out of espousing heresies througout his life.

That is immaterial though, from the purposes of historical data. We believe that, like other Fathers of the Church who also deviated from Church Teachings, they do faithfully represent the practices and issues of their day. For example, Tertullian captures some of the controversy about infant baptism (whether the Church should do it immediately or wait until the 8th day as was done for circumcision). His documentation of this discussion is historical evidence that the Church was baptizing infants before the NT was formed.

So, has the CC taught that John was boiled in oil? If so, do they still teach that? If not, when did they stop teaching this?

BTW, if ‘teaching’ is the wrong word, put ‘belief’.

 

[guanophore]

St. Jerome, being a saint, was Catholic, and definitely not a heretic. Tertullian had some non-orthodox views so is not considered to be one of the ECFs, and died a schismatic, per apologist Jimmy Akin.

You seem to be implying (perhaps I am misreading though?) that each and every theological speculation these writers made is part of the Deposit of Faith. If this is indeed your meaning, this is not correct.

I think the question would be, why would we accept as “tradition” something that came from a schismatic, or heretic.

 

[guanophore]

So, has the CC taught that John was boiled in oil? If so, do they still teach that? If not, when did they stop teaching this?

BTW, if ‘teaching’ is the wrong word, put ‘belief’.

It is one of those things like the vestments and fasting protocols that are customs, not part of the divine deposit of faith (Sacred Tradition).

Some might call it on the level of a pious legend.

It is not part of the doctrine of the faith.

If a person believed the account of Tertullian, it would not be considered in contradiction of the faith. Neither is it necessary to embrace it.

 

[Dokimas]

It is one of those things like the vestments and fasting protocols that are customs, not part of the divine deposit of faith (Sacred Tradition).

Some might call it on the level of a pious legend.

It is not part of the doctrine of the faith.

If a person believed the account of Tertullian, it would not be considered in contradiction of the faith. Neither is it necessary to embrace it.

Thank you. Now I think I understand better. Seems it’s a man’s tradition that may or may not be true and may or may not be believed by catholics seeing the story came by way of at least two catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. Now I think I understand better. Seems it’s a man’s tradition that may or may not be true and may or may not be believed by catholics seeing the story came by way of at least two catholics.

Right. What “came by way of at least two Catholics” is quite different than what “came by way of the Church.”

It is quite important to make a distinction between “Catholics” and “the Church” as it pertains to the Deposit of Faith.

Incidentally, do you find it curious that you acknowledge that these early Christian writers were Catholics? They are part of my Church, which celebrated the Eucharist, had bishops and a pope, venerated Mary and the saints, baptized infants.

Do you think it’s important that these men, so closely associated with the Apostles, were Catholic?

 

[joe370]

Thank you. Now I think I understand better. Seems it’s a man’s tradition that may or may not be true and may or may not be believed by catholics seeing the story came by way of at least two catholics.

Dok, I know you don’t reject traditions outright, so I was wondering: which church, in a world with so many divided churches, has the God given right via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, since Pentecost, to identify valid apostolic tradition, just as the apostles did regarding the old dispensation? To be honest if I didn’t believe that Jesus was, and still is guiding and protecting His deposit of faith, I wouldn’t defer to either sacred tradition or sacred scripture. Your thoughts on that as well?

 

[joe370]

Yes, Sacred Tradition is part of the Word of God.

The idea that Jesus could guide and protect His church from doctrinal error until the end of time, be it both sacred tradition and sacred scripture, both from within and without, seems to be something that is impossible for God to do from a non-Catholic perspective, and I just don’t get that. Very confusing…

 

[Dokimas]

Right. What “came by way of at least two Catholics” is quite different than what “came by way of the Church.”

It is quite important to make a distinction between “Catholics” and “the Church” as it pertains to the Deposit of Faith.

Incidentally, do you find it curious that you acknowledge that these early Christian writers were Catholics? They are part of my Church, which celebrated the Eucharist, had bishops and a pope, venerated Mary and the saints, baptized infants.

Do you think it’s important that these men, so closely associated with the Apostles, were Catholic?

If they were catholics I don’t find it curious.

Any church is made up of it’s people. The ECFs that are important to you and your church are people. The church makes mistakes that its people (leaders) make, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Dok, I know you don’t reject traditions outright, so I was wondering: which church, in a world with so many divided churches, has the God given right via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, since Pentecost, to identify valid apostolic tradition, just as the apostles did regarding the old dispensation? To be honest if I didn’t believe that Jesus was, and still is guiding and protecting His deposit of faith, I wouldn’t defer to either sacred tradition or sacred scripture. Your thoughts on that as well?

Any ‘church’ that humbly follows (to the best of their ability - yielding to the Holy Spirit’s direction) the Lord Jesus Christ.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by ‘deposit of faith’.

Tradition should be examined in light of the Scriptures and if the tradition is not against the Scriptures and edifies believers, it’s good to follow.

The Scriptures should always be deferred to, no matter what mistakes church leaders make. (By church leaders I’m referring to any Christian church.)

 

[PRmerger]

If they were catholics I don’t find it curious.

Good. Because they were Catholic.

When was it that your church removed priests from being able to celebrate your worship services?

When was it that your church stopped venerating the saints?

When was it that your church removed the books from the Bible that these early Catholic saints and bishops used?

Do you see, Dokimas? By admitting that these men in the first centuries of the church were Catholic, you are admitting that the way your pastor practices is new. It is something HE decided to do, fallibly, and based on his own fallible perceptions.