J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
Don’t worry about that. Fredricks went to the Mall, barefoot apparently. He probably won’t be back until later - much later if he steps on some glass and cuts his foot open.
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
Joe Gloor:
Perhaps he is on his way to buy new sandals.
E
Eden
Guest
The oral tradition that we have received was from Christ and the apostles and is called “the deposit of faith”. Nothing has been changed from apostolic times as there is no new public revelation. The Holy Spirit protects that “deposit of faith” which was entrusted to the Church. So, can the “deposit of faith” be in error? No.Hi everyone, very interesting thread. Now couldn’t “oral tradition” be in error? (if this is off topic my apologises and you need not answer). I guess if the Church says it can’t then…it’s like another built in defense mechanism against accusations.
For instance, lets say oral tradition was wrong and made as a doctrine. Could it not be wrong? That is where the whole infallibility of the Pope and office thing become such a contentious issue.
The way I see, “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” doesn’t guarantee it from error…(or so I have been taught lately)
Anyway, just some thoughts,…and weak ones at that. But carry on this is good reading and not many that are presented from a non-C perspective (not that I have seen anyway).
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
Thanks Eden. I have been looking at the Orthodox points of view lately as well. They do not believe in “transubstantiation” (which I am not trying to go off topic…I think it has to do with the foundation)…since that is the case, how could that be if that was contained in the original “Deposit of Faith”?
E
Eden
Guest
You are mistaken. The Orthodox do believe in the Real Presence.
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
I always believed Real Presence and transubstantiation were two different things. i.e., Jesus has a real presence when a few gather in his name to pray…
Anyway, not to tak ethis off topic, thanks for the response.
I would say they do not agree with the infallibility of the Pope.
J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
I think “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” would cover the Church from making Doctrinal error.Hi everyone, very interesting thread. Now couldn’t “oral tradition” be in error? (if this is off topic my apologises and you need not answer). I guess if the Church says it can’t then…it’s like another built in defense mechanism against accusations.
For instance, lets say oral tradition was wrong and made as a doctrine. Could it not be wrong? That is where the whole infallibility of the Pope and office thing become such a contentious issue.
The way I see, “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” doesn’t guarantee it from error…(or so I have been taught lately
Anyway, just some thoughts,…and weak ones at that. But carry on this is good reading and not many that are presented from a non-C perspective (not that I have seen anyway).
There are no “new” Traditions that come up and certainly nothing would come up that would contradict the Bible despite the opinions of some posters here. I’ve seen claims that the Church has made non-Biblical Doctrines but I haven’t seen anyone show where the Doctrines contradict the Bible.
For example the Assumption of Mary was declared a Dogma of the Church recently (1950), but nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was not assumed into heaven so the Tradition that she was can be declared Dogma without contradicting the Bible.
J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
His old ones might have gotten worn out from all the dust shaking. :whacky:Perhaps he is on his way to buy new sandals.
E
Eden
Guest
Joe Gloor:
We’ll have to see if he comes back. It was my understanding that Matthew 10:14 was referring to moving on permanently if your audience is not receptive to the message; not that one makes a trip to the mall and then returns to try again.
J
Joe_Gloor
Guest
He’ll be back. He thinks he’s winning the ‘non-debate’.
E
Eden
Guest
Joe Gloor:
I’m not so sure *he *even believes what he is posting. He said he is here to prevent wavering brethren from converting to Catholicism. So, it seems truth isn’t really the motive. The motive is to create enough confusion about the Church so as to avoid the wavering brethren from receiving or contemplating the clear truths of the Church. I think any time your motive is to obfuscate Truth, you have to wonder for whom you are speaking. I pray at least, that his wavering brethren will wonder.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Hey Malachi,
The Real Presence and transubstantiation are specific terms. You may have always understood them differently, but the Church mantains very specific meanings for these two terms.
The Real Presence refers to the Eucharistic Presence of the Lord: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
The Church has always held strongly that the Lord is present in an assembly of believers (Matthew 18: 20). However, this is not the meaning of the term “Real Presence.”
Transubstantiation, while a technically different term, refers directly to the Catholic theology of the Real Presence. The term “transubstantiation” was coined in order to clarify the Church’s doctrine of the Real Presence.
And regarding the Orthodox and their stance on issues regarding the Pope. . .papal infallibility is a secondary issue. The main point of contention is the primacy of the Western pontiff.
Hope this helps with your continued pursuit. . .
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Joe Gloor:
Let it be known, that if indeed he chooses to buy new sandals it is tradition, NOT Tradition, to avoid wearing white before Memorial Day! Oh. . .and gold tones are really ‘in’ this spring!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
fredricks response was more likely this.
Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
I thank his sharing of knowledge for all. And I applaud him,as he stayed very inline with my beliefs and I think that was the purpose also of this thread was to share.
Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
I thank his sharing of knowledge for all. And I applaud him,as he stayed very inline with my beliefs and I think that was the purpose also of this thread was to share.
E
Eden
Guest
I congratulate you on actually being able to discern what his beliefs are. He has not been willing to reveal his denomination publicly.
E
Eden
Guest
The Bible is your final authority? It’s a book. God should be the final authority.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Okay,
Though my mind is a bit fried from giving my talk tonight, I have a few minutes to begin typing a response before we settle down and continue working our way through the first season of Lost on DVD.
First things, as we explore these responses, it must be pointed out that Fredericks is not quite correct in what he believes Tradition is. I don’t think this is an intentional misrepresentation, but a large part of our problem comes from the fact that he is arguing against something we, as Catholics, don’t believe in either.
Three big errors:
For one, in his objection “Tradition”, he often attacks our Church councils. I’m not sure why. Councils are an exercise of the magisterial function of the Church, whereas Scripture and Tradition come in to play, but we as Catholics don’t claim that the decisions of councils are “Traditions” themselves, but rather the application of Scripture and Tradition. For that reason, I would be disappointed to see an attack on councils come up in this discussion. If we want to start another thread on the magisterium, that should be done instead of making our scope too wide.
Secondly, the implication seems to have been made in this thread that “Tradition” = the writings of the early church fathers. These writings are nice to affirm Tradition, as well as Scripture, as they are often commentaries on Scripture and Tradition. However, these writings are not, in themselves, the source of Tradition. We shouldn’t confuse the writings of these fathers as being “Tradition” themselves anymore than we should call them “Scripture” simply because they reference it. Too many Catholics work on this assumption, which makes them easy targets for a Protestant who can cite the writings of a Church father who has slipped into heresy or perhaps some theological speculation before a certain teaching has been defined. “Tradition” is guided by the Holy Spirit and is not subject to error or theological speculation.
Thirdly, Scripture and Tradition are from the same deposit of faith, but many seem to act as though we have, as Christians, half of the deposit in Scripture and half in Tradition. Scripture and Tradition teach all the same things. However, I’ve seen Protestants try to get us to identify Traditions that aren’t taught in Scripture. For instance, Fredericks writes: “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.” This is impossible. Scripture and Tradition contain the same deposit of faith, so he is putting a burden of proof on Catholics to prove something that we don’t believe. One (Scripture) is the materially sufficient expression of that entire deposit of faith. The other (Tradition) is the applied, or active, expression of that same entire deposit.
continued …
Though my mind is a bit fried from giving my talk tonight, I have a few minutes to begin typing a response before we settle down and continue working our way through the first season of Lost on DVD.
First things, as we explore these responses, it must be pointed out that Fredericks is not quite correct in what he believes Tradition is. I don’t think this is an intentional misrepresentation, but a large part of our problem comes from the fact that he is arguing against something we, as Catholics, don’t believe in either.
Three big errors:
For one, in his objection “Tradition”, he often attacks our Church councils. I’m not sure why. Councils are an exercise of the magisterial function of the Church, whereas Scripture and Tradition come in to play, but we as Catholics don’t claim that the decisions of councils are “Traditions” themselves, but rather the application of Scripture and Tradition. For that reason, I would be disappointed to see an attack on councils come up in this discussion. If we want to start another thread on the magisterium, that should be done instead of making our scope too wide.
Secondly, the implication seems to have been made in this thread that “Tradition” = the writings of the early church fathers. These writings are nice to affirm Tradition, as well as Scripture, as they are often commentaries on Scripture and Tradition. However, these writings are not, in themselves, the source of Tradition. We shouldn’t confuse the writings of these fathers as being “Tradition” themselves anymore than we should call them “Scripture” simply because they reference it. Too many Catholics work on this assumption, which makes them easy targets for a Protestant who can cite the writings of a Church father who has slipped into heresy or perhaps some theological speculation before a certain teaching has been defined. “Tradition” is guided by the Holy Spirit and is not subject to error or theological speculation.
Thirdly, Scripture and Tradition are from the same deposit of faith, but many seem to act as though we have, as Christians, half of the deposit in Scripture and half in Tradition. Scripture and Tradition teach all the same things. However, I’ve seen Protestants try to get us to identify Traditions that aren’t taught in Scripture. For instance, Fredericks writes: “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.” This is impossible. Scripture and Tradition contain the same deposit of faith, so he is putting a burden of proof on Catholics to prove something that we don’t believe. One (Scripture) is the materially sufficient expression of that entire deposit of faith. The other (Tradition) is the applied, or active, expression of that same entire deposit.
continued …
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I’ve given the analogy before of baseball. The book of rules is materially sufficient in that it contains everything we need to play the game, entire deposit of baseball rules. A succession of good coaches (who have the book of rules memorized) are the applied, or active expression of that same deposit of baseball rules. A book of rules tells us that one must hit the ball with the bat. The applied “Tradition” lets us see what that is supposed to look like: choking up, following through, positioning his body. The “book of rules” for Christianity tells us that we need to be baptized. The “good coach” of Tradition tells us what that is supposed to look like. For that reason, we can say that “Tradition”, guided by the Holy Spirit, is our interpretive authority.
That said, here are my thoughts on his response:
Regarding “inspiration”, this seems to be the thesis of Frederick’s response: So if we accept the historicity of the resurrection and the historicity of his followers, which stand up to all historical scrutiny, we accept that these followers wrote accurately and there writings are inspired, as Paul said all scripture(which Peter said Paul’s letters were) is.
The problem that I have here is the synonymous use of “accurate” and “inspired”. Fredericks uses the same approach that Catholics use to prove inspiration by first claiming that the Bible is historically accurate. Fredericks quoted the Catholic Answers tract which then goes on to say that, from this accuracy, we can trust that Christ was God (Frederick’s line of reasoning got this far) and that God, in the person of Christ, established a teaching church, guided by the authority of the Holy Spirit. That teaching church defined the Scriptures as inspired. As Fredericks rejects that authoritative teaching church, the spiral of his proof ends at “accuracy”. He has not successfully demonstrated inspiration from a Protestant perspective.
Regarding question 2, he wrote and gave us a number of early church fathers testifying to the apostolic origin of Scripture – exactly the answer I hoped he would give. Taking samplings from his proof, we see quotes like these: “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered” and “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter” and “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church” and “Hebrews was clearly known to the author of 1 Clement (17:1, 36:2-5). This sets the terminus ad quem for the book of Hebrews.” With apologies to Fredericks, I did a very rough sampling of his quotes (to conserve space), but enough to illustrate. Fredericks accepts the testimony of the early Christians as to the apostolic origin of Scripture. Amen!
continued …
That said, here are my thoughts on his response:
Regarding “inspiration”, this seems to be the thesis of Frederick’s response: So if we accept the historicity of the resurrection and the historicity of his followers, which stand up to all historical scrutiny, we accept that these followers wrote accurately and there writings are inspired, as Paul said all scripture(which Peter said Paul’s letters were) is.
The problem that I have here is the synonymous use of “accurate” and “inspired”. Fredericks uses the same approach that Catholics use to prove inspiration by first claiming that the Bible is historically accurate. Fredericks quoted the Catholic Answers tract which then goes on to say that, from this accuracy, we can trust that Christ was God (Frederick’s line of reasoning got this far) and that God, in the person of Christ, established a teaching church, guided by the authority of the Holy Spirit. That teaching church defined the Scriptures as inspired. As Fredericks rejects that authoritative teaching church, the spiral of his proof ends at “accuracy”. He has not successfully demonstrated inspiration from a Protestant perspective.
Regarding question 2, he wrote and gave us a number of early church fathers testifying to the apostolic origin of Scripture – exactly the answer I hoped he would give. Taking samplings from his proof, we see quotes like these: “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered” and “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter” and “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church” and “Hebrews was clearly known to the author of 1 Clement (17:1, 36:2-5). This sets the terminus ad quem for the book of Hebrews.” With apologies to Fredericks, I did a very rough sampling of his quotes (to conserve space), but enough to illustrate. Fredericks accepts the testimony of the early Christians as to the apostolic origin of Scripture. Amen!
continued …
A
awfulthings9
Guest
So, then, one would assume, he must accept the testimony of the same Christian group to the apostolic origin of Tradition, which was included over and over again in the writings of the early Christians:
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. …” (fragment in Eusebius, *Church History *3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius - “At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (*Church History *4:21). Notice the “writing” here is not Scripture, but writings formed from tradition.
Irenaeus - “That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
…
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
There’s lots more I could quote here, but to conserve space, I will refer readers to the excellent collection in the tract on Tradition in the Catholic Answers library. Now, going by Fredericks’ proof, as offered in his post, that the testimony of the early Church is proof of the apostolic origin of Scripture, I think that we all owe him a big thank-you for effectively proving the apostolic origin of Tradition through that same reasoning. And since we maintain that Tradition teaches the same thing as Scripture (you will have to bring in development of doctrine, which is not “Tradition”, in another thread), there is no need to provide proof for these “extra-Biblical” teachings he claims we must believe.
continued …
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. …” (fragment in Eusebius, *Church History *3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius - “At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (*Church History *4:21). Notice the “writing” here is not Scripture, but writings formed from tradition.
Irenaeus - “That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
…
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
There’s lots more I could quote here, but to conserve space, I will refer readers to the excellent collection in the tract on Tradition in the Catholic Answers library. Now, going by Fredericks’ proof, as offered in his post, that the testimony of the early Church is proof of the apostolic origin of Scripture, I think that we all owe him a big thank-you for effectively proving the apostolic origin of Tradition through that same reasoning. And since we maintain that Tradition teaches the same thing as Scripture (you will have to bring in development of doctrine, which is not “Tradition”, in another thread), there is no need to provide proof for these “extra-Biblical” teachings he claims we must believe.
continued …
A
awfulthings9
Guest
To answer question 3, Fredericks didn’t have too much of an answer, but this may have been mostly my fault. The point of this question was that, if the early Christians (those who lived past the apostolic age) had the authority to declare a writing as Scripture, then we must, as Christians, recon with that authority. It is, after all, that same authority is rejected from a Protestant mind-set. Many Protestant apologists admit this and claim we have a “fallible list of infallible” documents, in that, while (as question 1 addressed) Scripture is inspired, we can’t be sure that the early Christians infallibly determined which books were and were not “Scripture”. To me, this is a somewhat scary notion. However, if we admit that, through the guidance of God, the Christians had the authority to add to Scripture, then we are accepting an authority that goes beyond Scripture itself, an authority which Fredericks rejects. I still haven’t seen how he reconciles this.
For question 5, Fredericks reaffirmed my Catholic faith completely. Christ prayed for unity. Fredericks claims this is a spiritual unity, but Paul affirms that this is a doctrinal unity in 1 Cor. 1:10-13, where he writes, “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” and in Philippians 2:2, where he writes, “complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in the heart, thinking one thing”. Sola-Scriptura Christianity has splintered into more parts than one cares to imagine. Christ would not have instituted a church of confusion, a church of disagreement. Christians disagree on essential doctrines, such as the necessity of baptism. Would Christ have left us to stumble around, arguing over the text?
No real major comments on his answers for 6 and 7. They were straight-forward doctrinal questions, to which he gave a straight-forward response. I am glad, however, that I don’t have to live with that ambiguity over issues like the Trinity. I only need to think of all the heresies in the early Church that came from individuals who rejected the teaching authority of the church and interpreted those verses the way they felt they should be interpreted.
Question 8 is where we see some real problems. I need to hit some of his answer point-by-point:
He writes, “While the oral tradition was, and is, and integral part of the Jewish story, where does scripture say it was essential?” Fredericks is begging the question here because he still has to prove the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
continued …
For question 5, Fredericks reaffirmed my Catholic faith completely. Christ prayed for unity. Fredericks claims this is a spiritual unity, but Paul affirms that this is a doctrinal unity in 1 Cor. 1:10-13, where he writes, “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” and in Philippians 2:2, where he writes, “complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in the heart, thinking one thing”. Sola-Scriptura Christianity has splintered into more parts than one cares to imagine. Christ would not have instituted a church of confusion, a church of disagreement. Christians disagree on essential doctrines, such as the necessity of baptism. Would Christ have left us to stumble around, arguing over the text?
No real major comments on his answers for 6 and 7. They were straight-forward doctrinal questions, to which he gave a straight-forward response. I am glad, however, that I don’t have to live with that ambiguity over issues like the Trinity. I only need to think of all the heresies in the early Church that came from individuals who rejected the teaching authority of the church and interpreted those verses the way they felt they should be interpreted.
Question 8 is where we see some real problems. I need to hit some of his answer point-by-point:
He writes, “While the oral tradition was, and is, and integral part of the Jewish story, where does scripture say it was essential?” Fredericks is begging the question here because he still has to prove the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
continued …
- Status