Foundation

[Joe_Gloor]

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. **For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” ** Saint Justin Martyr “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

 

[Fredricks]

QUOTE=Eden]2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

It couldn’t be what he just wrote. Nah.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

So you think John is writing that he is against writing?

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

No it was always there and it sounds like it was authoratative

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

"As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. "

This person is misrepresenting the Word of God. It has gone from funny to serious.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Yes, Protestants believe in telling people about God. GUILTY AS CHARGED

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

We have asked for a modicum of proof, thats all

www.scripturecatholic.com

Really needs new writerss

Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

So Catholics believe in Oral tradition prophecy from Judasim? Where is it?

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Moses seat is in the Bible and I addressed this.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Which is a way of saying its biblical.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

It this is recorded in scripture which matches perfectly with what I have been saying.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

Of course, and now it is in scripture. This supports our contention again. We are not anti tradition. We just think we should have some support for it.

1

Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. "
WHAT this guy needs a proofreader.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Ok, what part of Sola Scripture is this person missing? Sola scripture never says you cannot quote oral tradition. The gospels ARE ORRAL TRADITION, WRITTEN and free from error.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Just answered that.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament. Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Why does this person think we are against people writing what they hear??

 

[Fredricks]

Joe Gloor:

No doubt. We’re as good at dodging difficult questions as you are.

Why dodge Joe. No I think it is symbolic but in all honesty I have no real dogmatic thoughts about it. Now answer it please

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

Where do you find in the Bible that a Priest with Apostolic Succession must be the one to administer this in order for this process to occur?

It comes from the Jewish Tradition - read Leviticus 1 over again and see if that doesn’t answer the question.

 

[JaneFrances]

We do not ascribe this to Sacred Tradition, which is not a biblical concept.

Here’s the thing. You say that you “do not ascribe” to Sacred Tradition because it is “not a biblical concept.” Now, apart from St. Peter’s instruction that the letters of St. Paul are to be considered “Scriptural” (or, biblical), where is your biblical concept for ascribing to the rest of the New Testament?

Once again, you have created for yourself a convenient double standard.

You have no biblical mandate which allows you to determine Scripture. In fact, apart from St. Peter’s letter regarding St. Paul’s letters, you depend wholly on Tradition and the authority of the early Church (patristic and conciculor) to even give you the remaining sum of what you accept at “Scriptural” texts.

In hindsight, you may certainly appeal to the scholarly accounts, but in practical terms your postition is untenable because you have presupposed your definition of the “word of God.”

The Word of God is, indeed, a “biblical concept,” but you have—through your tradition— defined it in unbiblical terms. It is not, as you would assert, the other way around.

For instance, in the Old Testament, the “word of God” refers to the oral transmission of law and prophecy, not excluding, of course, the Commandments made on the stone tablets. It does not, as you would contend, limit itself to that which is expressly written and canonical.

Then, in the New Testament, we see “the Word” referencing Jesus Christ, Himself (Jn. 1:1). We see “the word of God” throughout the book of Acts referencing the ministry and the predominantly oral preaching authority of the apostles (Acts 4: 31, Acts 6:2, 7, Acts 8:14, Acts 13: 46 etc.). Then, we see the “word of God” referring again to prophecy in 1 Cor.14: 36. Reading further, we see the “word of God” used in a more metaphorical sense as the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). In Philippians 1:14, St. Paul is very clear that “word of God” is being spoken among the brothers, not written. Once again in 1 Thess. 2:13, St. Paul emphasizes that the people are receiving the “word of God,” through the preaching of those commissioned to spread the Gospel. The examples go on. . .

So, it would seem that while we (and by “we,” I specifically mean the Church—not just those who agree with me) readily acknowledge Sacred Scripture as the “word of God,” there is no biblical concept (as you would demand) which exclusively defines “the word of God” as that which is written or that which is “biblical.”

The Catholic doctrine regarding the “word of God,” on the other hand, is entirely in concert with the “biblical concept.” We regard Scripture AND Tradition as “the word of God” which, not surprisingly, is entirely more “biblical” a concept than your tradition of Sola Scriptura. So, it would seem that your tradition is, in fact, the one that is an extra-biblical concept.

What I asked for was proof of Sacred Tradition that comes from Christ or the Apostles themselves. It did not seem like an unreasonable request. If there is something outside of the Bible that would be important to a believer, where did it come from? I have yet to see an extrabiblical tradition traced historically to Christ or his apostles that deals with anything resembling an essential doctrine.

Surely, having read all the “history,” you are well aware of the Tradition often referred to as The Real Presence. It has been mentioned before–the terms differ, but the biblical concept and the traditional “apostolic” doctrine are consistent.

Primary sources available upon request.

 

[Fredricks]

Joe Gloor:

It comes from the Jewish Tradition - read Leviticus 1 over again and see if that doesn’t answer the question.

So you do not think that the Priests have to have any of the qualifications listed in the OT but you think they must break the bread??? Sounds like pick and choosing from the OT. At least you admit it is not found in the NT.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

 

[Fredricks]

“It’s rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers.”

"We have to remember that Jesus died around 30. For 40 years, there’s no written gospel of his life, until after the revolt. During that time, we have very little in the way of written records within Christianity. Our first writer in the New Testament is Paul, and his first letter is dated around 50 to 52, still a good 20 years after Jesus, himself. But it appears that in between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They’re passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it…

“How did the resurrection story get started? We have to remember that the gospels themselves and their full account of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus came a good bit after the fact, a full generation, in some cases perhaps even sixty years, two generations later. So those stories had a long time to evolve and develop. But we can see that they’re based on some smaller units of oral tradition that had been circulating for many years before. We see this even in Paul’s letters. Paul himself, remember, doesn’t write a gospel. He actually doesn’t tell us much about the life of Jesus at all. He never once mentions a miracle story. He tells us nothing about the birth. He never tells us anything about teaching in parables or any of those other typical features of the gospel tradition of Jesus. What Paul does tell us about is the death, and he does so in a form that indicates that he’s actually reciting a well-known body of material. So when he tells us, “I received and I handed on to you,” he’s referring to his preaching, but he’s also telling us that what he preaches, that is the material that he delivers, is actually developed through the oral tradition itself.”

Eden you are quoting someone who does not think that Matthew actually wrote his gospel. Too liberal for my taste, been through that “scholarship” route 100 times.

 

[Eden]

You can see that the Bible is full of references to the oral tradition.

Oral tradition is part of Judaism and it’s part of the Church.

The early Christians relied almost exclusively on oral tradition for the first few centuries and the oral traditions continue today to teach us in conjunction with that which was written.

Fredericks attempted to answer scripturecatholic.com but failed.
Believing that oral tradition ceased is simply not biblical.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

So you do not think that the Priests have to have any of the qualifications listed in the OT but you think they must break the bread??? Sounds like pick and choosing from the OT. At least you admit it is not found in the NT.

Not necessarily - My point was that only the priests can perform a sacrifice - which the Lord’s supper is the final one.
Jesus commanded the Apostles to do it - the Apostles are the Bishops and the Bishops can allow (or not) priests to do it.
I can’t understand why you would think that Transubstantiation is ‘symbolic’ though. What do you base that on? Certainly not Scripture.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Eden you are quoting someone who does not think that Matthew actually wrote his gospel. Too liberal for my taste, been through that “scholarship” route 100 times.

I’m not impressed by your answer. You have no response to the clear historical evidence that the early Christians relied almost exclusively on oral tradition, an oral tradition which was not meant to be overrided by the arrival of the New Testament. It is quite clear that the early Christians knew that oral tradition and the written Word were to be passed on together.

 

[Fredricks]

Joe Gloor:

Not necessarily - My point was that only the priests can perform a sacrifice - which the Lord’s supper is the final one.
Jesus commanded the Apostles to do it - the Apostles are the Bishops and the Bishops can allow (or not) priests to do it.
I can’t understand why you would think that Transubstantiation is ‘symbolic’ though. What do you base that on? Certainly not Scripture.

Once again, where do you see in the NY Bible that Paul or Jesus said a priest must do this or only an Apostle? With that reasoning anytime Jesus was talking to just the Apostles he only intended for the Apostles??

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

I’m not impressed by your answer. You have no response to the clear historical evidence that the early Christians relied almost exclusively on oral tradition, an oral tradition which was not meant to be overrided by the arrival of the New Testament. It is quite clear that the early Christians knew that oral tradition and the written Word were to be passed on together.

I was not impressed you quoted someone who contradicts Catholic doctrine by saying that the gospels were written a “generation” after his death. Liberal scholars get under my skin and a good Catholic has no business supporting them.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Once again, where do you see in the NY Bible that Paul or Jesus said a priest must do this or only an Apostle? With that reasoning anytime Jesus was talking to just the Apostles he only intended for the Apostles??

Only a priest? Bishops consecrate the Eucharist as do priests who are ordained by bishops with apolostic succession.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Only a priest? Bishops consecrate the Eucharist as do priests who are ordained by bishops with apolostic succession.

The Bible does not teach that a Bishop or a priest must do this. It never says that at all.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

Once again, where do you see in the NY Bible that Paul or Jesus said a priest must do this or only an Apostle? With that reasoning anytime Jesus was talking to just the Apostles he only intended for the Apostles??

Well, you’re certainly splitting hairs on this minor issue.
I’m not the expert you seem to be.
Why not just answer the question about major issue, which is the Tradition of Transubstantiation?

 

[JaneFrances]

Why does this person think we are against people writing what they hear??

Actually, I think “this person” is responding to your constant contention that only what is written is viable and authoritative. No one has once inferred that Protestants, such as yourself, are “against people writing what they hear.” This, AGAIN, is your straw man.

 

[Fredricks]

Joe Gloor:

Well, you’re certainly splitting hairs on this minor issue.
I’m not the expert you seem to be.
Why not just answer the question about major issue, which is the Tradition of Transubstantiation?

I have addressed it on another thread Joe and even though it is really interesting to you guys, it is not to me. Nothing personal. You can read my thoughts on another thread. It does not matter to us if it is symbolic or real. If the Bible does not teach a priest or Bishop MUST do it, we have whatever reality you guys have. Lest you be worried, we do not discard the unused portions but eat it all.

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

Actually, I think “this person” is responding to your constant contention that only what is written is viable and authoritative. No one has once inferred that Protestants, such as yourself, are “against people writing what they hear.” This, AGAIN, is your straw man.

Jane, the person who writes those answers is. Come on. You know most anyone could do better. You have to see that.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

I have addressed it on another thread Joe and even though it is really interesting to you guys, it is not to me. Nothing personal. You can read my thoughts on another thread. It does not matter to us if it is symbolic or real. If the Bible does not teach a priest or Bishop MUST do it, we have whatever reality you guys have. Lest you be worried, we do not discard the unused portions but eat it all.

Nothing personal but I don’t care what your thoughts are on the matter of Transubstantiation itself. I just want to know how you square the ‘non-biblical’ Tradition of transubstantiation with solo-scriptura.