Confused Baptist, Potential Convert...

[Bishopite]

Originally Posted by kaycee
Apparently whatever it is, (I don’t believe there is important oral tradition) it was not important enough to document and send to the churches.

If scripturated revelation is more important than unscripturated, then can you show me from the Bible were it says it is?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

biblechristiansociety.com/

aww, thought some folks might want the link to get some free cd’s…worth every penny to get it shipped.

It is because of John Martignoni’s One Church CD, otherwise known as Pixie Dust’s Burning Bush, that I am anticipating my Confirmation next month.

 

[christcnection1]

There was many false teachers attacking the early church, where should one go to get apostolic teaching?

Several quotes from 200 years after the resurrection is hardly convincing.

How about the Bible?

Is not the church the pillar and bulwark of the truth? (1 Tim 3:15)

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

There are many more verses!!! This is just a start.

If you can’t trust that God apostolic succession, you make most of these verses seem totally ridiculous.

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

 

[guanophore]

The RCC can only guess at what “oral tradition” might be. Apparently whatever it is, (I don’t believe there is important oral tradition) it was not important enough to document and send to the churches.

On the contrary, kaycee, we have this Sacred Tradition carefully preserved, just as the RCC carefully preserved the scriptures.

There have been a number of Sacred Teachings important enough to write to the churches about, and these are all found in the Apostolic letters of the Pope, encyclicals, catechism, and other official documents of the Church.

Your rejection of the Sacred Tradition does not make it null, or cause it to somehow disappear.

Then it might be helpful to stop saying “praying to the saints” for starters.

Again, God directs no one to ask heavenly saints for prayers.

kaycee, if you do not wish to avail yourself of the Sacred Traditions, that is your choice, but counselling people here to abandon these things because you don’ t find them necessary is out of order. In your personal opinion, God has not directed anyone to ask the saints for prayers. It has been demonstrated here and on other threads such as this one

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=165775

That this practice has been followed since the martyrdom of the first saints.

If you try to pull people away from the Catholic faith, you will be violating the forum rules.

 

[BobCatholic]

Dont see the connection with prayer requests to heavenly saints.

1 timothy 2:1 : Paul asks the Church to pray for others.

What’s the Church? Oh yeah. Those on earth, AND THOSE IN HEAVEN.

One body of Christ. Not two. There is only one Christ.
One bride of Christ, not two. Christ is not a polygamist.

 

[NathanR]

If you are really looking for insight go to
Biblechristiansociety.com and order a free CD on Intercession of saints. I promise you it will answer your questions!

 

[kaycee]

If scripturated revelation is more important than unscripturated, then can you show me from the Bible were it says it is?

I certainly can show many examples!

Show me where Gods people are bound to obey unscripturated revelation?

 

[malachi_a_serva]

You will learn that not everything that you read in these forums are “factual” in the Catholic Church. There are a lot of opinions. You must find a reliable resource when you need guidance.

I appreciate this comment as I think it is overlooked that allot of what is stated - may not be exactly as the RCC presents it.

 

[guanophore]

I certainly can show many examples!

Please do. Please show us where the Bible says that it’s contents are more important than the sacred traditions from when it came.

Show me where Gods people are bound to obey unscripturated revelation?

An unscripturated revelation…hmmm. I guess that would be the canon of the Bible, kaycee. As well as the Apostles creed. Anyway, one is not “bound to obey” when it comes to asking the intercession of the saints. If one professes the creed, one will affirm the communion of saints, but if one wishes to ignore the other members of the body (saying that, becauase they are different than oneself, they are not needed) then that choice will be answered for by the person in front of the heavenly throne (while the great cloud of witnesses looks on )

 

[kaycee]

On the contrary, kaycee, we have this Sacred Tradition carefully preserved, just as the RCC carefully preserved the scriptures.

You just seem unable to list a single oral tradition from the Apostles. Should’nt binding tradition for salvation be a bit more substantive?

There have been a number of Sacred Teachings important enough to write to the churches about, and these are all found in the Apostolic letters of the Pope, encyclicals, catechism, and other official documents of the Church.

Your rejection of the Sacred Tradition does not make it null, or cause it to somehow disappear.

It would be a little easier to accept or reject, if anyone could tell me what it is that the apostles taught orally

kaycee, if you do not wish to avail yourself of the Sacred Traditions, that is your choice, but counselling people here to abandon these things because you don’ t find them necessary is out of order. In your personal opinion, God has not directed anyone to ask the saints for prayers. It has been demonstrated here and on other threads such as this one

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=165775

That this practice has been followed since the martyrdom of the first saints.

If you try to pull people away from the Catholic faith, you will be violating the forum rules.

Hmmm, the thread is confused Baptist, potential convert. Should’nt protestants be allowed to plead their case to another protestant before that person swims the Tiber. It should be a 2 way street, nes pas?

 

[mtr01]

You just seem unable to list a single oral tradition from the Apostles. Should’nt binding tradition for salvation be a bit more substantive?

Ok…
the Liturgy (that’s one)

kaycee:

It would be a little easier to accept or reject, if anyone could tell me what it is that the apostles taught orally

They are by definition oral. However, read the Early Church Fathers beginning with Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatious of Antioch, that should get you started.

kaycee:

Hmmm, the thread is confused Baptist, potential convert. Should’nt protestants be allowed to plead their case to another protestant before that person swims the Tiber. It should be a 2 way street, nes pas?

The original poster asked for clarification on intercessory prayer from a Catholic perspective. “Pleading your case” does not address the OP’s question, and is therefore off-topic.

 

[kaycee]

How about the Bible?

Is not the church the pillar and bulwark of the truth? (1 Tim 3:15)

Yes, it upholds the Truth, it does not become the truth.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Peter drew lots for the next apostle, not the next pope.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

So, where are the RCC 12 apostles today that got this authority? why are there not 12?

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Think you need another “proof text”.

That does not appear to be the case, from Paul’s own mouth, does it?

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (**not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ **and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),

Rom 1:4 Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship

1 Cor 1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

Fidelity to the word seems to be the charge. Lineage was a means to try to guarantee fidelity to the message. Lineage in itself is nothing if the message is corrupted.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Offcouse, John believed that fidelity to scripture was the test for Peter and Paul talk about wolves and false prophets entering the church and not sparing the flock. Laying on of hands did not prevent them from being false prophets

 

[Philthy]

You just seem unable to list a single oral tradition from the Apostles. Should’nt binding tradition for salvation be a bit more substantive?

The Real Presence
Necessity of Baptism
Salvation not by faith alone
OT Canon
NT Canon
Sunday has replaced Sabbath
“The Prayers” mentioned in Acts 2:42; Liturgy
Necessity of perseverance in faith
That should be a good start, I think
kc:

It would be a little easier to accept or reject, if anyone could tell me what it is that the apostles taught orally

I dont actually believe you here: I dont think a list would be acceptable - you would simply deny the authority of the Church in providing the list, would you not? Yet you accept the contents of your Bible without question based upon nothing other than that exact same authority. You simply don’t believe it and won’t even if your given a list.
kc:

 

[Philthy]

Yes, it upholds the Truth, it does not become the truth.

There is no difference between the Church revealing what the truth is and the Church upholding the truth. The Church upholds the truth, no one ever claimed it becomes the truth. That seems like a pretty deliberate twisting (on your part) of what has been claimed of the Church, and it seems like you are doing it to avoid what this verse says.
When the very legitimate question is raised, "What, exactly, did Christ mean when He said “This is my body” the Church upholds the truth from the myriad of falsehoods. When James says, “You see…that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” The Church upholds and defends the truth of that Scripture from all the other distortions of Scripture which lead to “destruction”.
That has nothing to do with “becoming” the Truth; it has everything to do with upholding the Truth so that it can be recognized as the Truth.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, it upholds the Truth, it does not become the truth.

Should there be any distinction? The Church upholds both the written and oral sacred teachings.

Peter drew lots for the next apostle, not the next pope.

By whose authority?

You are right, he ordained his successor (Linus) with the laying on of hands and annointing with oil, just as it is done to this day.

So, where are the RCC 12 apostles today that got this authority? why are there not 12?

This is an excellent question, and the answer is found in that Sacred Tradition which you seem to abhor so much. You can read where each Apostle travelled, and who was ordained after him. All of the bishops from all over the world today can trace their lineage back to one of the Apostles.

Think you need another “proof text”.

That does not appear to be the case, from Paul’s own mouth, does it?

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (**not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ **and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),

Rom 1:4 Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship

1 Cor 1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God
Fidelity to the word seems to be the charge. Lineage was a means to try to guarantee fidelity to the message. Lineage in itself is nothing if the message is corrupted.

All the ordained persons, like Paul, are called of God. What the Church does is recognize and affirm the calling through the laying on of hands. Ordination is the agency that Jesus uses to keep the message pure, and to secure the lineage.

2 Tim 2:2-3
2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

The oral tradition, the “things you have heard” were passed down through ordination. Later, some of these were committed to writing.

Offcouse, John believed that fidelity to scripture was the test for Peter and Paul talk about wolves and false prophets entering the church and not sparing the flock. Laying on of hands did not prevent them from being false prophets

Well, since most of the scripture had not been written or assembled yet, you must be talking about the OT scripture? Neither, I think. John used the Sacred Oral Tradition as the standard.

 

[christcnection1]

Yes, it upholds the Truth, it does not become the truth.

Yes, and the Church has upheld the truth from the start. If that’s not true, then God allowed His people to walk in theological darkness for nearly 1,500 years. That’s a tough one to swallow for me, and for anyone who believes that God cares for the welfare of His people.

Peter drew lots for the next apostle, not the next pope.

This is an example of Apostolic Succession

So, where are the RCC 12 apostles today that got this authority? why are there not 12?

As the Church needed more, more were ordained. The first century Christians believed this.

It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ’s will, the are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them. They are the successors of the Apostles, though they do not possess all the prerogatives of the latter.

newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

Think you need another “proof text”.

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

That does not appear to be the case, from Paul’s own mouth, does it?

I agree with you; however, by making a distinction between man and the agency of man (two different things), that leads any reasonable person to conclude that God can use the agency of man to accomplish His will. Paul and the other apostles were exceptionally chosen.

That’s like saying that the final say on the New Testament’s canonicity was by the authority of man only. Clearly, neither of us believe that. We are not talking about the authority of men; we are talking about the authority of God through man. This is an obvious distinction.

Fidelity to the word seems to be the charge. Lineage was a means to try to guarantee fidelity to the message. Lineage in itself is nothing if the message is corrupted.

Offcouse, John believed that fidelity to scripture was the test for Peter and Paul talk about wolves and false prophets entering the church and not sparing the flock. Laying on of hands did not prevent them from being false prophets

If God wanted to ensure Sola Scriptura from the start, He didn’t have to wait for approx. 1,500 years. That would not have been a problem for Him. Why would God promote the “laying on the hands” if that was ultimately meant to be a failure? It just makes the whole practice seem like a bunch of empty rituals.

Just because some were false prophets does not meet they were not valid authority figures.

Judas was probably the most wretched soul every chosen in such a place of authority. Of course our Lord hand selected him. Selling out the Son of Man and committing suicide is far worse than anything one of the wicked Popes did. Still, God chose Judas.

People like Judas are the goats; His true flock are the sheep. At the final judgement we’ll all figure out who are His true children.

If the Catholic Church, for about 2,000 years, has been a man-made institution (the oldest in the world), it would have collapsed long ago. Instead, it remains the most active and influential institution on the face of the planet. In most parts of the world, She is growing and getting stronger.

If the Bible said “fidelity to the Bible (or scripture) alone is the only means to know truth,” you would definitely have something there!

When Paul or anyone in the New Testament was referring to fidelity of scripture, they were talking about the Old Testament. It’s reasonable to conclude that all the apostles taught more than was merely written (though nothing contrary to it).

If you can accept a God that has allowed His people in theological blindness (based on the supposed truths of your version of Protestantism), that’s fine with me. I just do not believe it best reflects God’s nature, my understanding of the Bible, and history as I see it.

God Bless,
JB

 

[Bishopite]

I certainly can show many examples!

Show me where Gods people are bound to obey unscripturated revelation?

Well…then show me.

God’s people are those whom the Apostle Paul spoke to in 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6 and in 1 Cor 11:1 where he exhorted (which means urged strongly) to hold fast to the Traditions (paradosis) handed down to them both by written (scripturated) and unwritten (unscripturated) means, and there exists nowhere in scripturated revelation where it says that there is an expiration date on oral Tradition, therefore we are to do as Paul says and stand firm to the oral Traditions passed to them through the Catholic Church for which history attests.

2 Thes 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

 

[savedsinner]

I certainly can show many examples!

Show me where Gods people are bound to obey unscripturated revelation?

What about the canon of scripture.

The bible doesn’t tell us which books are inspired and should be included in our bible.
We Christians are bound to hold what scripture tells us, so how do we know which scriptures those are?
We have 27 books in our new testament. When the church determined the canon, there were another 6 - 12 books which were used in the churches at that time, which the church determined not to be inspired, as well as about 6 of the books in which they did include were in also in dispute.
That is a total of 12-18 out of about 35 or more books at the time were in question, and they were able to narrow it down to the 27 books which were determined to be inspired of God. (the church did not make them inspired, it recognized which ones were inspired)

Well, I would hold that it is by an unscripturated revelation which led the Church to determine which books were inspired, and which were not.

I would say that Christians are bound by what is written in these inspired books, wouldn’t you?

 

[kedera]

Sure. I haven’t been saying much in this thread, as I have been too busy reading However, I don’t mind when ya’ll disagree, actually, it helps. I want to be informed, and kaycee seems to really like to create…debate. I want whatever comes of my journey to be God’s will, of course, at the same time I want to do whatever I can, to see different views. I feel sure that God will give me peace about what it is that he wants for me:thumbsup: .

 

[christcnection1]

Sure. I haven’t been saying much in this thread, as I have been too busy reading However, I don’t mind when ya’ll disagree, actually, it helps. I want to be informed, and kaycee seems to really like to create…debate. I want whatever comes of my journey to be God’s will, of course, at the same time I want to do whatever I can, to see different views. I feel sure that God will give me peace about what it is that he wants for me:thumbsup: .

These are indeed important issues, and I see them as relatively friendly “in house battles” between brothers and sisters in Christ.

kaycee certainly should help plead the case for his version of the Protestant perspective.

Although, he’s a fighter, I can’t see how he is not “on the ropes.” This is really an uphill battle, but I applaud his honesty and desire to defend his perspective.

It’s great that you are open to understanding both sides kedera!

God Bless,
JB