If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

[guanophore]

The Scriptures throughout make the claim that they are of God. The Jews of the OT recognized it,Jesus did and the apostles.

They do, just as the Church that Jesus formed claims throughout that it is of God, and all the early Christians recognized it as such, so did the Apostles. Claiming this to be so, however, is not sufficient for you when it comes to the Church, but it is for the Bible. Why is that?

Can you point to the source where the Magesterium has done this?

The Magesterium is the “Teaching Authority” appointed by Jesus. It consistes of the Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops in union with the Pope.

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. Every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2, [155 A.D.])

Their authority to teach comes from God, through the Apostles. the truth that comes from them can be ascertained because they are in union with the Magesterium.

“Let us be careful, then, if we should be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,3])

Irenaeus is writing against heresies in the second century that you are aligning yourself with, ja4. Those who reject the authority of the bishops, appointed by the Apostles, are considered outside of God’s order.

“And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,1])

You are one of those "ravers’ ja4. You are teaching things that were never taught by the Apostles, such as Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and secession from the Apostolic authority.

“The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. **To him succeeded **Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,3])

"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [4,26,2])

“For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches; and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in various devious paths; and on this account the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of these, however, who belong to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [5,20,1]).

 

[andzy]

Sorry, JA4, but I just cannot believe it you’re serious. But anyway, here I go again:

I must be confused what you are asking here. Is the bible the only rule of faith? Depends what you mean by “rule of faith”. Can you give me a couple of examples of these “rules of faith”?

Whatever you meant with the “rule of faith” when answering to Randy Carson’s is the meaning you’re looking for:
justasking4 @ post#149:

The NT is inspired-inerrant. Nothing else is. It is the foundation for all doctrine and practices because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

Randy Carson @ post#156:

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole infallible rule of faith for believers?

justasking4 @ post#160:

It goes back to my previous point and what follows from that. If the scriptures truly are from God then we know they are inerrant-inspired-infallible.

I picked up on this and said:
andzy @ post#167:

The Bible doesn’t say that.

justasking4 @ post#169:

It does not say that specifically.

So, you made an argument that the Bible claims to be the sole authority and rule of faith, but then you said it doesn’t say that “specifically”.
Then I asked you to clarify your position:
andzy @ post#178:

So, you agree that the Bible does not support your argument that the Scripture is the only inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?
Or maybe you’re saying that the Bible doesn’ say it, but you’re implying it?

But you basically ignored this question:
justasking4 @ post#181:

The Scriptures throughout make the claim that they are of God.

andzy @ post#187:

Yet again you seem to be trying to avoid the question. I’m asking if the Scripture is the only rule of faith, you answer that it is inspired by God. BIG difference. Do you see this difference?
I’m asking again:
Do you or do you not agree that the Bible does not say that it is the ONLY inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?
I’m not asking whether it is God inspired. We both agree on that, that’s what the Catholic Church teaches, no question about it.

So, I’m asking the third time:
Yet again you seem to be trying to avoid the question. I’m asking if the Scripture is the only rule of faith, you answer that it is inspired by God. BIG difference. Do you see this difference?
I’m asking again:
Do you or do you not agree that the Bible does not say that it is the ONLY inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?
Please don’t avoid it and don’t change the subject.

 

[guanophore]

This is the result of much study on the issue. To claim that something is inspired-inerrant is not a circular argument if there are a number of facts and arguments to back it up.

I am glad your studies have led you to understand that he scriptures are inspired-inerrant. I hope that, as you continue to study, that you will find this to be true also of the One to Whom they point, Jesus Christ, who is present in His Body the Church, and by His Holy Presence He has made her infallible and inerrant also.

Never claimed that. Are you infallible when you claim you are right and others are wrong?

No, but the Church is.

Not so. Peter in 2 Peter 3:16-17 alludes that Paul’ letters are scripture.

Yes, but the comment Paul wrote about the Scriptures preceeded what Peter wrote. There is no evidence that Paul realized all he wrote would later be considered scripture. Furthermore, in this passage, he is referring to scripture that Timothy had since his youth, which can ONLY be OT scripture. When Paul wrote here that “all scripture is inspired by God…” He was referring to the OT. Therefore it follows that, if that verse states all that is needed, then you don’t need a NT at all!

Also even if the writers were unaware that what they were writing was not scripture would not change the fact that it was scriptures. Scripture being inspired-inerrant does not depend on the one writing it. It is God who inspires, not men.

This is true, but at the time that verse was penned the vast majority of the NT had not yet been written. Also, it was nearly 400 years until the Church sorted out which books were inspired from those that were not. It was by the Authority Jesus appointed in the Church that this could be done. The books did not sort themselves out!

The problem is that so many of the reponses are inadequate and so i find myself having to repeat so much.

You are clinging to your Protestant tradition, and it is not accepted here by those of Apostolic faith. For that reason, no amount of repititions will change anything.

 

[guanophore]

I must be confused what you are asking here. Is the bible the only rule of faith? Depends what you mean by “rule of faith”. Can you give me a couple of examples of these “rules of faith”?

If its what i think you mean then yes. Churches have other “rules of faith”.

Where does Jesus teach His disciples to go when they have a dispute that needs to be resolved?

 

[guanophore]

Where did the catholic get this idea from?

St. Peter. He wrote that men, inspired by God, spoke through the HS. By this same principle the Church, appointed by God as the Authority on earth, determined by infallible council which books belonged in the Bible. It is an inspired-inerrant proclamation.

This is a loaded issue. For one what exactly does the phrase “pillar and foundation of truth” mean? Does this phrase give the church the authority to make doctrine for example?

Ah ha! The root of the issue.

Do it teach that the church is incapable of making errors?

No, it teaches that when instructing the faithful in the area of faith and morals, that she will never teach errors. It means that we accept the promise that Jesus would guide us into all Truth.

How can you say tha that the scripture cannot witness to itself? What did Jesus mean for example in John 10:35 where He teaches that the Word of God can’t be broken?

The Word does witness to itself, but as you have pointed out repeatedly, this is insufficient. T’he Church also witnesses to itself, but as you reinterate constantly, saying that one is authoritative does not make it so. It requires testimony from outside itself for validation. Jesus taught that He Himself was the Word. His truth is reflected in the writings, but not completely contained within the books. That would be impossible.

I do believe the catholic church got it right with the NT canon.

On what basis? How did the Church “get it right” on this one thing, and wrong on so many others?

Christ gave the church pastor-teachers to teach us the scriptures. What i do believe is that the church dervies its authority to teach from Christ and when it teaches the truth. When it does not teach the truth it does not have authority.

Well, at least we can agree that the scriptures don’t “teach” themselves!

Its dangerous for catholics to listen to protestant teachers.

Really? why is that? I think I have learned more about my faith from Protestants than I have Catholics!

 

[guanophore]

I think it depends what we mean by “influence”. No doubt there have been great men and women in the church. By influence i mean it in a theological sense where the writings of Paul have had, continue to have a powerful influence on theological issues. I can’t think of anyone in church history after the apostles who has had a greater influence. Can you?

In the Eastern Church (Orthodox) the Apostle John had more influence, and St. John Chrysostom, who carried on his gospel.

Here is what the same St. John Chrysostom has to say about Saint John the Evangelist:

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now…. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit” (St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

“Were John about to converse with us, and to say to us words of his own, we needs must describe his family, his country, and his education. But since it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind, it seems to me superfluous and distracting to enquire into these matters. And yet even thus it is not superfluous, but even very necessary. For when you have learned who he was, and from whence, who his parents, and what his character, and then hear his voice and all his heavenly wisdom, then you shall know right well that these (doctrines) belong not to him, but to the Divine power stirring his soul…. Not so this fisherman; for all he saith is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human” (St. John Chrysostom, Second Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

I think it the Protestant realm, St. Paul is used to the exclusion of other Apostolic Teaching.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2828773]I am glad your studies have led you to understand that he scriptures are inspired-inerrant. I hope that, as you continue to study, that you will find this to be true also of the One to Whom they point, Jesus Christ, who is present in His Body the Church, and by His Holy Presence He has made her infallible and inerrant also.

How can you say this when your church has admitted to some of its errors?

No, but the Church is.

Yes, but the comment Paul wrote about the Scriptures preceeded what Peter wrote. There is no evidence that Paul realized all he wrote would later be considered scripture. Furthermore, in this passage, he is referring to scripture that Timothy had since his youth, which can ONLY be OT scripture. When Paul wrote here that “all scripture is inspired by God…” He was referring to the OT. Therefore it follows that, if that verse states all that is needed, then you don’t need a NT at all!

The moment Paul had written his letters they were scripture whether he realized it or not. Remember, inspiration and innerancy comes not from the human authors but from God Himself.

This is true, but at the time that verse was penned the vast majority of the NT had not yet been written. Also, it was nearly 400 years until the Church sorted out which books were inspired from those that were not. It was by the Authority Jesus appointed in the Church that this could be done. The books did not sort themselves out!

You are clinging to your Protestant tradition,

What do you think you are clinging to? Its your catholic traditions that tells you they can never err. Even when faced with historical facts you must cling to this.

and it is not accepted here by those of Apostolic faith.

What do you mean by Apostolic faith?

For that reason, no amount of repititions will change anything.

Only God knows if this is so.

 

[guanophore]

What i’m referring to is how the church has used Peter more than any other apostle to justify its claims as the supreme leader of the entire church. The church has presented Peter in the NT as if he were like some modern day pope who has ultimate power. The problem is that the NT does not present him like this.
Would you agree?

The Catholic Church does not teach that the successor of Peter is “supreme leader”. She teaches that the Pope is the “servant of the servants of Christ”. To him has been passed the Petrine gift to feed the sheep and lambs, and that he may not fail, by the prayers of Christ.

The Church does NOT present Peter in the NT as if he were some “modern day pope who has ulitmate power”. this is a slanderous charge, ja4, and something that sounds like it comes out of anticatholic propaganda. Give up those Chick Tracts!!!

The Church teaches that we have the seeds in the NT that later became the largest of all the bushes (mustard). The seed is hardly recognizable as the source, since it is such a small seed.
The modern day papacy that has grown out of the seed represents something that would boggle the minds of the Apostles.

 

[Erich]

Tried posting early yesterday evening but was unable to do so… some of what I was going to say has already since been said by others but it apparently bears repeating. So, here goes…

Where do you get the idea i can only prove this with a circular argument? Where have i stated as much?

All you’ve ever stated is the claim that Scripture is inspired-inerrant. For example, on other threads you’ve stated the following:

We have good reasons to believe we have the right canon of scripture. Its not based because the church says so, but on the very scriptures themselves that are “God-breathed”.

The Bible is inerrant and inspired not because your church proclaims it so but is based on the very nature of the Scripture itself.

If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God—and that is exactly how most Fundamentalists understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work—then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.

Can you point me to an offical source from the catholic church itself that says to the effect that these are inspired-inerrant traditions at same level as scripture?
For example this is what the scripture says about itself in Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Do these traditions have this power to what the scriptures themselves claim?

You seem to be limiting the “word of God” to the written text of Scripture. Like someone said earlier on this thread, this thinking makes a car’s owner’s manual more important than the car it is written about!

 

[Erich]

Because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

There you go again! From Proving Inspiration,

What about the Bible’s own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even elliptically, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct behest of God, with the exception of John, the author of Revelation.

Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, “The following is an inspired book,” this would prove nothing. A book of false scriptures can easily assert that it is inspired, and many do. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish that something is bona fide.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore
Originally Posted by justasking4
What i’m referring to is how the church has used Peter more than any other apostle to justify its claims as the supreme leader of the entire church. The church has presented Peter in the NT as if he were like some modern day pope who has ultimate power. The problem is that the NT does not present him like this.
Would you agree?
guanophore
The Catholic Church does not teach that the successor of Peter is “supreme leader”. She teaches that the Pope is the “servant of the servants of Christ”. To him has been passed the Petrine gift to feed the sheep and lambs, and that he may not fail, by the prayers of Christ.
You might want to look at the catechism on this. Here is what it says about this:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

guanophore
The Church does NOT present Peter in the NT as if he were some “modern day pope who has ulitmate power”. this is a slanderous charge, ja4, and something that sounds like it comes out of anticatholic propaganda.

Not so. When i see the defense given of Peter as being the first pope it certainly gives the impression that Peter alone was the head since it is claimed to him alone the keys were given.

g

uanophore
Give up those Chick Tracts!!!

never…

guanophore
The Church teaches that we have the seeds in the NT that later became the largest of all the bushes (mustard). The seed is hardly recognizable as the source, since it is such a small seed.
The modern day papacy that has grown out of the seed represents something that would boggle the minds of the Apostles.

This is what is great about discussing issues with catholics. When there backs are against the wall out come the implicit and seed arguments…

 

[Erich]

I take it you don’t know then with your response.

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

 

[justasking4]

There you go again! From Proving Inspiration,

What about the Bible’s own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even elliptically, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer explicitly claims that he himself is writing at the direct behest of God, with the exception of John, the author of Revelation.

Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase, “The following is an inspired book,” this would prove nothing. A book of false scriptures can easily assert that it is inspired, and many do. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish that something is bona fide.

What does it mean to say the scriptures are inspired?

 

[guanophore]

If Oral Tradition cannot be shown to exist, how do you know it does? No one in your church can tells exactly what this Oral Tradition is since it was never written down. Is this not right?

We have the testimony of Jesus, through the Apostolic Succession to the authenticity of the Sacred Tradition.

It is not right to say “no one can tell what this is”. In fact, many aspects of the Sacred Oral Tradition can be referenced in the liturgy, prayers, writings of the Fathers, church councils and the catechism. However, since you reject all these sources as authoritative, it will seem to you as though it does not exist.

 

[justasking4]

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

There were a number of “tests” that the church used in determining to what was inspired and what was not. Some of the tests were:
1-written by an apostle or one closely associated.
2- Did it have the power of God in it?
3- did it tell the truth of about God?

These are just some of the “tests” used to determine the NT canon.

 

[justasking4]

We have the testimony of Jesus, through the Apostolic Succession to the authenticity of the Sacred Tradition.

It is not right to say “no one can tell what this is”. In fact, many aspects of the Sacred Oral Tradition can be referenced in the liturgy, prayers, writings of the Fathers, church councils and the catechism. However, since you reject all these sources as authoritative, it will seem to you as though it does not exist.

Please give me a specific “Sacred Oral Tradition” of an apostle that is not written scripture. Show me in a liturgy or prayer where this is shown.

 

[Erich]

How does it follow that Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary) if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the sole rule of faith?

Maybe I need to spell it out? The “sacred scriptures” referred to in 2 Tim 3:14-15 can only be the Old Testament, since the New Testament was still in the process of being written. 2 Tim 3:16-17 says “All scripture * is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness” … note that it doesn’t say anything about scripture being the sole rule of faith!

Finally, don’t forget about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8…
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?”
Someone (i.e. Philip), not something (i.e. a Bible).

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our authority in matters of faith and morals? It doesn’t!

Does any New Testament author cite oral tradition as authoritative for doctrine (thereby contradicting your claim that scripture is the sole rule of faith)? As a matter of fact, yes! One example should suffice, but here are at least five!*

 

[zerocrossing]

If Oral Tradition cannot be shown to exist, how do you know it does? No one in your church can tells exactly what this Oral Tradition is since it was never written down. Is this not right?

Ever read the early Church Fathers? Some of them, like St. Clement and St. Ignatius, were writing just a few years after Revelation. They can tell you quite a bit about the content of the early oral tradition.

And actually, it was the Tradition - in cooperation with the Holy Spirit - that preserved Scripture and determined which books were inspired. Unlike the 10 Commandments, God did not carve the New Testament in stone and deliver it from a mountaintop. The canon of the New Testament was not fully established (as canon) until the early Church Councils, some 300 years after the deaths of the Apostles.

We have Tradition to thank for the canon of New Testament Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

You might want to look at the catechism on this. Here is what it says about this:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

The two are not separate from each other, ja4. This text should not be separated from the NT texts on leadership in which Christ explains how He wants that leadership to function. He gave to all the apostles special authority that they should exercise unhindered. Only to Peter did He give certain gifts for shepherding the whole flock. None of the Apostles would presume to exercise their authority in exclusion to the others, including Peter.

Back to the point of the thread, the Apostolic Authority was passed on to the bishops, and none of them would consider acting outside of unity with the successor of Peter either.

“After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighbouring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical state such as were designated by the Spirit” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that is saved?, 190 A.D. [42,2]).

“Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles” (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).

It is clear from the very beginning that right doctrine was determined by what had been handed down through the Apostolic Succession.

“Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 6:13:107:2, [207 A.D.])

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one.We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin, and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7:17:107:3-5, [207 A.D.])

“Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel, by way of assigning the Episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His Church. From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of the times and successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter without heading, of Cyprian to the Lapsed, A.D. 250, [33,27,1]).

Those who are not in union with the bishops, and the successors to the Apostles, are referred to as heretics.

 

[guanophore]

Forewarning to ja4, please hold on to chair…

There were a number of “tests” that the church used in determining to what was inspired and what was not. Some of the tests were:
1-written by an apostle or one closely associated.
2- Did it have the power of God in it?
3- did it tell the truth of about God?

These are just some of the “tests” used to determine the NT canon.

Again I have to go with ja4 on this one. The Church did not use all that history and textual criticism to determine the authenticity of the scriptures. As a matter of fact, most of that did not come along till over a millenia later.

On the other hand, the Apostolic authority, power of God, and Truth about God all came from Sacred Tradition. That is the source of ratifying the scriptures. “men, inspired by God, spoke”. this happened in several infallible councils, and was reiterated at Trent, specifically in response to heresies that developed. Most (if not all ) of the Church’s infallible pronouncements are responses to heresies.