My bible does not have tradition with capital T. Could you point to some scriptures that have Tradition with a capital T.
Mark7:6-13
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men**—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”Code:‘ This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. **10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Faith comes from what is preached (not read). Nowhere does Scripture say that oral Tradition died with the apostles. On the contrary, Scripture tells us that the spoken word abides forever
( 1Cor 15:1,11). The Gospel which is preached (not read) to us is not man’s Gospel, but the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)
Hearing the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living Word in the Church’s living Tradition (Eph 1:13). The Word of God is what we have heard (been taught). The spoken Word of God lasts forever, and the Word is preserved within the Catholic Church by the Holy Spirit as our Lord promised Peter and the Apostles (1Thess 2:13). What the Church teaches is protected by the Holy Spirit until the end of time. The apostolic teaching authority of the Church did not expire with the death of the apostles. Public revelation ended with the apostles, but this revelation is still unfolding to our fuller understanding ( 2 Tim 1:13).
At the end of his life, Paul ordained and commissioned his successor Timothy to preach (not write) the Word of the Lord. Apostolic teaching did not stop with Paul ( 2 Tim 4:2, 6-7). God’s Word is manifested through preaching (not writing). This preaching is the Sacred Tradition that comes to us from the apostles ( Titus 1:3). The Word of the Lord abides forever, and that Word was the good news that was “preached”, not strictly written to us. Since the Word was originally preached by the apostles, and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by their successors - the Church Fathers, Popes and Bishops - or this could not be possible. And because the spoken Word lasts forever, apostolic Tradition could not have died in the late fourth century with the canon of Scripture. The Church’s teachings are not strictly commited to what has been explicitly written in the Bible ( 1 Pet 1:25). Jesus condemns human traditions that voids God’s word. Unfortunately Protestants use Mark 7 and Matthew 15:3 to condemn all tradition. But these verses have nothing to do with the tradition which we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. The Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this negates God’s law of honouring our parents. There is a distinction between human tradition and apostolic tradition. Paul clearly commands us to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says we must stand firm and hold to the traditions which we were taught either by word of mouth or written letter. Scripture and Tradition thus go hand in hand ( 2 Thess 2:15). In fact, it was this apostolic tradition that permitted the church to select the Bible canon. Since all of the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also shows that oral tradition did not end with the death of the last NT apsostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Trinity, the hypostatic union of two natures in the Person of Jesus Christ, the ‘filoque’ ( that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son), and the Assumption of Mary. None of us could really understand what the Bible is telling us without the infallible apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
Please note that the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” found in Matthew 2:23 is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. So the apostles relied on oral tradition and taught by oral tradition. Jesus also relied on oral tradition by acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This succession is not recorded in the OT.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
If the apostles relied on oral tradition why did they write the gospels?Faith comes from what is preached (not read). Nowhere does Scripture say that oral Tradition died with the apostles. On the contrary, Scripture tells us that the spoken word abides forever
( 1Cor 15:1,11). The Gospel which is preached (not read) to us is not man’s Gospel, but the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)
Hearing the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living Word in the Church’s living Tradition (Eph 1:13). The Word of God is what we have heard (been taught). The spoken Word of God lasts forever, and the Word is preserved within the Catholic Church by the Holy Spirit as our Lord promised Peter and the Apostles (1Thess 2:13).Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Do you know that the New Testament Greek had a very different capitalization and even punctuation? There were no capital letters as we do in our translations. So just because “tradition” is translated with or without capital “T” doesn’t mean anything. Do you not recognize Jesus divinity just because NIV uses lower case “he” when referring to Christ, but capital case “God”?
The apostles were teaching people orally. If you look at the NT carefully, you’ll see that the Gospels and the epistles were written mostly because the Apostles couldn’t see the recipients in person. If the assumption that non-written traditions are not authoritative, then why didn’t the Apostles write down all teachings (e.g., regarding the Trinity, Jesus humanity, etc)?
Oral Tradition does NOT exclude divinely-inspired written Scriptures. The canon was declared in order to sort out the confusion of which Scriptures exactly are divinely inspired.
Though the original autographs no longer exist, copyists of both the Old and New Testaments served to preserve God’s Word for future generations. In the first century the scriptures were compiled to handle an immediate problem: false teachers who threatened the unity of the true Christian faith. A similar crisis arose that made the canon of scriptures a necessary part of preserving the true Word of God for future generations. False writings appeared on the scene, which had the appearance of the sacred texts but were not. The early Church established guidelines or standards which writings had to pass to be recognized as sacred and truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. The word “canon” means a measuring line or rule. Many apocryphal books were circulating, so the Church was compelled to distinguish truth from fiction and safeguard and preserve the true books from the fake ones for future generations. The Book of Revelation almost wasn’t included. The Church needed a sure guide to co-exist with her traditions. Scripture comes from Tradition, and so Tradition has precedence over Scripture. The Catholic Church has the sole divine authority to determine which books are canonical and which ones are non-canonical. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition form the Sacred Deposit of Faith. But Jesus commissioned his apostles to establish his visible Church and to preach the good news. He did not appoint them to write and compile a Bible. Only three of his apostles actually wrote gospels. And Paul was not one of the original twelve. The Bible {book} is a divinely inspired result of Church Tradition.
No, and I don’t understand what you are saying here.
Why not? Why should the Apostles use only the bare minimum methods needed to communicate the Gospel? Why not use both written words and preaching?
You have been told by numerous posters ja4 that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is found in the teaching of the Church. This fruitless search for a verse by verse parsing is a waste of your time and ours. The apostles did not teach themselves, but they were taught directly by God. Jesus taught them EVERYTHING.
Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition. and Sacred Scripture is infallible because it proceeds from infallible Sacred Tradition. If Sacred Tradition did not exist, or if it were not the infallible deeds of God, then Sacred Scripture would lose its foundation and would not be infallible. If Sacred Scripture were full of errors, then Sacred Tradition, from which it arose, would be full of errors.
Because they finally realized that Jesus may not come back during their lifetimes.
Because the scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for training in righteousness. It accurately reflects the Gospel committed to the Apostles by Jesus.
Big leap from “relies on” to “solely relies on.” Originally, all the teachings were oral, as Jesus wrote down nothing and it’s not like there was a scribe following them around.
It’s no use, Ephel. ja4 thinks that the Oral Tradition is fiction, and that what we consider the Sacred Teaching of the Apostles transmitted through faithful men who were able to teach others also is nothing but the “speculations of men”. He believes ALL the Apostolic Teachings that remain are contained within the NT, and not just any, but the one he interprets.
**
The Catholic Church does not teached that Mary ascended into heaven. She teaches that Mary assumed body and soul into heaven. This basis is based on the Eastern Christian tradition of the Dormition of Mary. Where Mary fell asleep, or died. Then Jesus Christ raise her from the dead, and took her into heaven.
Were these men infallible and incapable of erring in their beliefs? The Marian dogmas were not the focus of the great Prostestant Reformantion as far as i can tell and these reformers were still influenced by their catholicism as far as i can tell. This would help to explain why they wrote about her as they did.**
Not in the least and you have been told that before.
Now, let me tell you what some of the Reform fathers said about the Blessed Mother and allow you to tell me what you think about their remarks OK? And No, I will not play: " Not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify?" with you about this subject!:tsktsk:
Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:
Martin Luther:**
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
“One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.” (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
John Calvin:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} [On Matt 1:25:]
The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Huldreich Zwingli
in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’ {Thurian, ibid., p.76} " I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil " . Zwingli had printed in 1524 in a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’ {Thurian, ibid., p.76} . . ." I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity." {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger
. . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . . Bullinger (d. 1575)
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {“Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}
It seems no one can say exactly what these “Oral Traditions” and
Would you please stop this calumny. You have been shown the definition of Sacred Tradition, and is not a list or catalogue. So stop already.It seems no one can say exactly what these “Oral Traditions” and
“Sacred Teachings” specifically are since there does not exist any offical list or catalogue in the church. Until we can all see specifically see what they are we can speculate til the cows come home i guess…
