The problem with your claim is that there is no evidence for it. Where are these “Oral Traditions” of the apostles not written in scripture? Please give me a couple examples of it?Fundamentalists may not, I acknowledge that. However, the Catholics and Orthodox have preserved the Oral Traditions in many places outside scripture. You were broken off from your family tree, and you don’t have the photo album.
There is no evidence you will accept, justasking, because you are limited to scripture, and even further, your own understanding/interpretation of that scripture. I am not even sure you know what liturgy is!
Here is the question i asked:–Where are these “Oral Traditions” of the apostles not written in scripture? Now, are you saying this “Apostles Creed” was a “Oral Traditions” of the apostles?
Are you saying that the assumption is an "“Oral Tradition” of the apostles?
I have no problem accepting parts of the catechism that quote scripture. Those sayings can easily be traced back to the scriptures. Its the other stuff that is claimed is the problem.
“Justasking4” “For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who dont no proof is possible” (Anon)
I wonder if most catholics would be satisfied with this kind repsonse in terms of the foundations for their beliefs. I do think for most part they want proof.
The only ones who need proof are these who have declared themselves the sole authority in deciding truth.
Have you actually READ the catechism and referred back to the documents it refers to? If the CCC doesn’t directly quote scripture in every paragraph then I can assure you the documents it refers to do.
Well, that is a personal problem and not a Catholic Church problem.
I agree in part. It applies to protestants too. Its also a church problem because i think it could do a far better job discipling its people.
Just quick on the last point, as I was confused on it when I embraced Orthodoxy.Okay, here goes.
I would agree with this statement. God Choose Mary through whom Christ would be born and Christ is absolutely essential to my salvation.
Harder to say if I agree or not because I am not on that forum so I have no idea if the statement is objectively true.
Do I believe Mary is the New Eve? Yes. There are writings from the Early Church that indicate this as well as scriptural typology.
Dispenatrix - I could not find this word in any Catholic dictionary nor the dictionary at all. Probably meant to use the term Mediatrix?
Mediatrix is not a term I like to use. It is a term that brings up immediate thoughts that are incompatible with Christianity. When defined, it is not, but I think the term is misleading and do not care for it. If you wish to get into the definition of the term, I will, but I think you are just trying to see if I agree with this person, yes?
I agree with this statement. Mary is not dead. No saint is dead. Scripture tells us this. (Lazy, and rushed, but will provide scripture if you like)
Not sure what he is defining as “essential role” so can’t say.
I disagree with this statement. I know that I knew Jesus before I understood Mary.
I do believe however, that as scripture says, understanding Mary is only magnigying the Lord. (Luke “My soul magnifies the Lord”)
I do think it is a shame when Protestants do not give the Mother of our Lord respect, to seemingly distance themselves from anything Catholic.
Scripture prophecies that all generations will call Mary blessed. There is nothing wrong with doing so, although I find it interesting that usually the same ones who do not believe Catholics are Christians, never use the term blessed, so if it weren’t for the “non-Christians” in their eyes, this prophecy would not have been kept:shrug:
I do not need a mediator except Christ. That is my immediate reaction to that statement. Even though there is valid Catholic theology, with scripture that I could provide to explain that statement, I think this is not an effective way to explain the Catholic position. I don’t care for that statement since I feel it needs too much explanation to make it valid with non-Catholic Christians.
I disagree with this statement. I think that there are many Catholic Christians who don’t care for his statement since it has misleading implications that are long and laborious to explain. We are not embarrassed by the traditional Catholic position. We just do not use the same words because we are completely aware of what the non-Catholic “hears”.
This statement is false. A person can be a canonized saint without every word they ever wrote being aproved as “correct”. St. Augustine is a perfect example. He was a “doctor” of the Church yet there are things that he espoused that the Church disagrees with. Examples can be provided if you wish.
And how exactly did Jesus ‘discipline’ those who walked away from Him? Even Judas?
The invisible church known as Protestant christians as a collective failed to disciple the following?
Ahh! I am out of time. Not much time on the forums anymore. Dinner time awaits.
Ah,tell me how do you prove oral tradition? it’s intangible-not written, that’s what makes it oral!Hebrew scriptures for centuries were oral tradition before being set to papyrii.the earliest NT writings were paul’s epistles (Galations about 48 ad).The Gospels were oral first because early christians believed the parousia was imminent -so there would be no need to write the gospels down. as the people who personally knew Christ started to die many felt that a record of Jesus mission should be put in a literary form-so it could be passed around to different communities. For some reason oral tradition is anathema to some-particularly in the west. In easten culture(especially mid east) oral tradition is taken to be just as valid as written. In fact Homer’s Iliad would not exist except for oral tradition. Oral tradition is a valid method of communication especially among a populace that was not literate- as most people in the ancient world in the poorer classes were.Besides How do we know or who do we assume wrote the gospels t? They were anonymous!Do you believe Matthew , Mark,Luke & John wrote them? How do you know that- it isn’t written in scripture! It was TRADITION- ORAL TRADITION- then written tradition but tradition nonetheless So by what authority are you justified in your faith that the Gospels were written by the aforementioned? It isn’t in the bible so doesn’t that make your faith in who the Gospel writers were untenable?
I have read that the fathers attributed it to the Apostles. However, for us, since the Apostolic Authority has been handed down, there is no distinction between the Apostles’ authority or that of those they appointed.
“Apostolic” means that it comes to us through the Authority appointed by the Apostles. Yes, the Assumption is part of the Sacred Tradition preserved by the Apostolic succession.
Wow. That is saying a lot!
That is because you do not accept that the scriptures you are using as the final authority were born of the Sacred Oral Tradition that was entrusted to the Apostles. Jesus did not hand them a book, but a Teaching, some of which is now preserved in a book, though not all.
Well, speak for yourself! YOU don’t have grounds, because you are not grounded in the Apostolic Faith! For those of us that recognize the Authority that Jesus appointed for His church, we have plenty of “grounds”.
There were various tests the written scriptures had to pass before they were considered inspired-inerrant. Now, how do you go about proving an oral tradition when there are no written records of it outside the written scriptures? If there was an oral tradition of the apostles which there might have been, where is it? How do you know today what an apostle said that is not written in scipture?Ah,tell me how do you prove oral tradition? it’s intangible-not written, that’s what makes it oral!Hebrew scriptures for centuries were oral tradition before being set to papyrii.the earliest NT writings were paul’s epistles (Galations about 48 ad).The Gospels were oral first because early christians believed the parousia was imminent -so there would be no need to write the gospels down. as the people who personally knew Christ started to die many felt that a record of Jesus mission should be put in a literary form-so it could be passed around to different communities. For some reason oral tradition is anathema to some-particularly in the west. In easten culture(especially mid east) oral tradition is taken to be just as valid as written. In fact Homer’s Iliad would not exist except for oral tradition. Oral tradition is a valid method of communication especially among a populace that was not literate- as most people in the ancient world in the poorer classes were.Besides How do we know or who do we assume wrote the gospels t? They were anonymous!Do you believe Matthew , Mark,Luke & John wrote them? How do you know that- it isn’t written in scripture! It was TRADITION- ORAL TRADITION- then written tradition but tradition nonetheless So by what authority are you justified in your faith that the Gospels were written by the aforementioned? It isn’t in the bible so doesn’t that make your faith in who the Gospel writers were untenable?
Is there not a difference though between what the successors taught and what the original apostles taught? For example, the apostles never taught anything about the assumption of Mary but some “successor” at a later time did. These 2 teachings are not the same thing.
But the teaching itself was not taught by the original apostles themselves. Correct?
The catholic church doesn’t get everything wrong.
Is it not true you have no teachings of the original apostles outside the NT?
If you can show that those who came after the aposltes have the same authority as the original apostles and their writings are also inspired-inerrant then you will have the grounds to say this. Does your church consider the teachings of the popes for example on the same level as the inspired-inerrant NT?Well, speak for yourself! YOU don’t have grounds, because you are not grounded in the Apostolic Faith! For those of us that recognize the Authority that Jesus appointed for His church, we have plenty of “grounds”.
While all New Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, do you not think it is possible that the Holy Spirit is still leading the Church to all truth? Does not the Holy Spirit teach you new things daily? Weekly? But the Holy Spirit hasn’t lead a whole Church? Those promises only apply to individuals?
We don’t have any record of it no. If anyone knew though, it would be John and in Revelations, as you know, Catholics claim that some of it applies to Mary.
And we had to get much right or the world would have been bereft of any Christians at all for 1500 years.
No. That is not true. Infant baptism is a direct teaching of the Apostles but is not explicit in scripture, (unless you are a sacramental Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox then it is quite clear
)But who has the ulitimate authority to interpret correctly what those teachings are? Nowhere in scripture, does scripture itself claim that the written word in and of itself has ultimate authority and nor does it claim to be self-interpretative.
We would agree that it is the NT alone that are inspired and inerrant and do not put them on the same inspired level as that of scripture.
This is a great question, justasking. We know the validity of the Traditions because they are consistent with the Teaching of the Apostles. None of them contradict the scriptures.
This is a great question, justasking. We know the validity of the Traditions because they are consistent with the Teaching of the Apostles. None of them contradict the scriptures.
The successors understood certain things more fully, and their understanding developed over time. When Jesus promised that He would send HIs spirit to guide them into all truth, He kept His promise.
If you are speaking about the Assumption, most likely not, since most of them died before she did.
It’s a miracle!
This is not true
Well, you are in a bit of a fix then, because none of those original documents have survived. What we have now are translations, largely collected, preserved, and promulgated by Catholics.
The Word of God (Jesus) transmitted His message orally to the Apostles who entrusted that message to faithful men who could teach others also. Yes, Jesus’ promised to protect the message, both in writing, and orally, and He has done both.
Ex Cathedra statements, yes, otherwise, no.