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

[guanophore]

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.

The Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;

And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;

so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.

But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.

So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.

Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.

One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;

From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

And shall give account of their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

 

[Erich]

Please give me a specific “Sacred Oral Tradition” of an apostle that is not written scripture.

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!

Guess I’ll copy the examples of “specific ‘Sacred Oral Tradition’ of an apostle that is not written scripture” after all, to make it easier for the “folks at home to follow along”

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt.2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.”
…
This then would be an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and P harisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3).
…
One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.
…
Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments–baptism and the Eucharist --were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea&qu ot; (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1Cor. 10:4).

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. … It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1Cor. 10:5ff.)

1 Peter 3:19

In his first epistle Peter tells of Christ’s journey to the netherworld during which “he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1Pet. 3:19). There is a growing scholarly consensus … that the interpretive key to this verse is found in Genesis 6:1-7, in which “the sons of God” cohabited with “the daughters of men” and produced ghastly offspring. …

It appears likely that this is Peter’s view as well (2Pet.2:4,9). Note the close link to Noah and Geneses 6. Compare too Jude 6, which says that “the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day …” These references are evidence that Peter has this traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in mind when he writes of Christ’s preaching “to the spirits in prison.”
…
Additional background is found in the extra-biblical book of 1 Enoch. …

Jude 9

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: “When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” (Jude 9).

As H. Willmering says, “This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.” … Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body. … Several of the Church Fathers know of another version in which Moses’ body is assumed into heaven after his death. … Jude draws on this oral Tradition to highlight the incredible arrogance of the heretics he opposes …

 

[justasking4]

The Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;

And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;

so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.

But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.

So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.

Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.

One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;

From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

And shall give account of their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

i’m almost afraid for asking another question for fear of being blasted for doing so but will do so anyway. Perhaps i was not clear in my question. What i’m asking for an “oral saying of one of the apostles of the NT” who said something that is not recorded in the NT and is used as a theological grounding for some doctrine in the catholic church?

 

[justasking4]

Guess I’ll copy the examples of “specific ‘Sacred Oral Tradition’ of an apostle that is not written scripture” after all, to make it easier for the “folks at home to follow along”

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt.2:23). All commentators admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.”
…
This then would be an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and P harisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3).
…
One searches in vain for any reference to this seat of Moses in the Old Testament. But it was commonly understood in ancient Israel that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors.
…
Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself.

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments–baptism and the Eucharist --were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea&qu ot; (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1Cor. 10:4).

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. … It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1Cor. 10:5ff.)

1 Peter 3:19

In his first epistle Peter tells of Christ’s journey to the netherworld during which “he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1Pet. 3:19). There is a growing scholarly consensus … that the interpretive key to this verse is found in Genesis 6:1-7, in which “the sons of God” cohabited with “the daughters of men” and produced ghastly offspring. …

It appears likely that this is Peter’s view as well (2Pet.2:4,9). Note the close link to Noah and Geneses 6. Compare too Jude 6, which says that “the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day …” These references are evidence that Peter has this traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in mind when he writes of Christ’s preaching “to the spirits in prison.”
…
Additional background is found in the extra-biblical book of 1 Enoch. …

Jude 9

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: “When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” (Jude 9).

As H. Willmering says, “This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.” … Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body. … Several of the Church Fathers know of another version in which Moses’ body is assumed into heaven after his death. … Jude draws on this oral Tradition to highlight the incredible arrogance of the heretics he opposes …

I agree with much what you write. The scriptures do reference things outside the sciptures. What i’m asking specifically are any oral sayings of an apostle of the NT that is not mentioned in it that is considered part of the Sacred Tradiiton. If so, what exactly is it?

 

[Holly3278]

I have heard it said that the selection of Matthias is one example of apostolic succession in the Bible.

 

[mercygate]

i’m almost afraid for asking another question for fear of being blasted for doing so but will do so anyway. Perhaps i was not clear in my question. What i’m asking for an “oral saying of one of the apostles of the NT” who said something that is not recorded in the NT and is used as a theological grounding for some doctrine in the catholic church?

Not to my knowledge. Sacred Tradition is not hearsay. And I am not sure how even an affirmative reply would affect Apostolic Succession, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[mercygate]

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.

Dont forget:
4) Being read in the liturgy
5) Consistent with Church teaching

The books of the NT canon were validated using two practical Church-specific criteria.

 

[mercygate]

Where did the catholic get this idea from?

It comes from the Last Supper, when Jesus promised to send “another paraclete” who will “guide you into all the truth.” This followed upon his prayer to the Father that they would "be one even as we [Jesus & the Father] are one. When the Church comes together in council “as one”, it reposes in the promise that Christ made at the last supper.

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?

Yes.

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

Would the Holy Spirit, who guides the Apostles “into all the truth” lie? Yes: The Church does not err in matters of faith and morals.

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?

What on earlh does this have to do with the inerrancy of Scripture. Jesus quotes scripture, affirms that it is authoritative (since He is God, He can do that).

Actually, one Catholic “take” on the Hebrew Scriptures is that Jesus canonized them on the Road to Emmaus. 'Nother thread.

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

Why? Because it feels good? What authority did the Church have in 393 A.D. that it does not have now?

I don’t make such a claim. 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.

We believe that Christ gave the Church pastor-teachers. We believe that their authority comes from Christ. We believe, however, that it is possible to KNOW who those teachers are by who sent them. The Church – guided by the Holy Spirit “into all the truth” cannot teach error. An individual pastor-teacher might deviate from the truth, but the net of Apostolic fellowship, handed down through two millennia, in union with Peter, assures that the Church will not teach error.

 

[Erich]

What i’m asking specifically are any oral sayings of an apostle of the NT that is not mentioned in it that is considered part of the Sacred Tradiiton. If so, what exactly is it?

Right off the top of my head, it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture that the “beloved disciple” is John, yet this is considered part of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Erich]

I agree with much what you write. The scriptures do reference things outside the sciptures.

In post #222 you asked for an “oral saying of one of the apostles of the NT” who said something that is not recorded in the NT and is used as a theological grounding for some doctrine in the catholic church.

But, what of these (and other) examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ reliance on the oral traditions of their day? Should they not be used as theological groundings for Church doctrines (because the oral traditions themselves are outside Scripture), or are they somehow “ok” (because the oral traditions are referenced in the books that later became NT Scripture, thereby making them “scriptural”)? Why didn’t an “is it Scriptural?” argument back in the 4th century keep these books from being included in NT Scripture in the first place?

What makes it ok for Jesus and the Apostles to rely on something that is not recorded in the OT (i.e. the Scriptures of their day, which by the way can clearly be shown to have included the Deuterocanonicals) as a basis for their teaching?

 

[andzy]

What i’m asking specifically are any oral sayings of an apostle of the NT that is not mentioned in it that is considered part of the Sacred Tradiiton. If so, what exactly is it?

For example, that the Baptism can be done with or without immersion (something some Protestants will disagree with), or the general guidelines of the liturgy, especially the liturgy of the Eucharist, that the Church still follows. (These Traditions are described in Didache, and not in the New Testament.)
P.S. I hope you’re not avoiding my question.

 

[Erich]

Please give me a specific “Sacred Oral Tradition” of an apostle that is not written scripture.

Do you believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death?
Mark Shea:

…A modern apologist for the culture of death can and does argue that Scripture alone, apart from tradition, is as ambiguous about abortion as it is about the question of just war vs. pacifism – and therefore abortion is a matter of “Christian liberty.”

Consider: neither testament gives a clear understanding of the status of unborn life. Is the fetus a human person possessing the same dignity as a child after birth? Is the conceptus? Is the act of directly causing the death of such a one an act of murder or some lesser offense? Is it an offense at all? No direct answer is ever attempted to these questions anywhere in Scripture.

Worse, the indirect ways in which Scripture addresses these issues are very oblique and open to multiple interpretations – apart from tradition. …

Do you agree with the prohibition against polygamy?
Mark Shea:

And yet… where does this condemnation come from? For as Milton and Luther pointed out, it is scarcely supported by Scripture.
…
For if we read the text strictly … we find it only speaks of divorce and remarriage. It nowhere forbids men multiple wives if they retain previous ones.
…
Paul makes abundantly clear that remarriage (not to mention multiple marriage) is forbidden while one’s spouse is still living (Rm 7:3; 1 Cor 7:39). And this is true enough – for women. But what of men hailing from either a first century pagan or Jewish culture, both of which permitted male polygamy? …

I assume you believe in the Trinity?
Mark Shea:

…Arians were principally concerned to preserve the Oneness of God from pagan polytheism. They argued cogently from Scripture. They were well-trained, Greek-speaking theologians who could read Scripture in the original tongues. The only problem was that they had the brighter, simpler idea that Jesus was not truly God but only a sort of godlet or superior created being.
…
But this simple biblical message * is precisely what Arianism denies – and it uses the Bible to do it! …*

I assume you also believe – as all orthodox Christians believe – that, as the Second Vatican Council says, “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Mark Shea:

…First, why did the Catholic Church regard this teaching as dogma when Mormonism explicitly denied it?If Rome’s assertion that Sacred Tradition is revelatory was identical to the Mormon claim of continuing revelation, why then did Rome diametrically oppose Salt Lake City by insisting public revelation could not be added to?

Secondly, where did we Evangelicals and Rome get

this rock-bottom, non-negotiable belief that public revelation was closed? As I reflected on it, I realized the roots of this belief are simply nowhere to be found in Scripture.There is not one single syllable anywhere in the New Testament which says that public revelation will close when the apostles shuffle off their mortal coil. To be sure, such a view of revelation extends back very far. But it is not recorded in the New Testament documents. …

Mark Shea is a former non-denominational Evangelical Protestant… the above quotes can be found in their entirety here.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;

Quote:
I do believe the catholic church got it right with the NT canon.
mercygate;
Why? Because it feels good? What authority did the Church have in 393 A.D. that it does not have now?

It may have authority but that does not mean it has not erred. 2 different issues. We know it has erred at times in history on a number of issues.

 

[mercygate]

It may have authority but that does not mean it has not erred. 2 different issues. We know it has erred at times in history on a number of issues.

The indefectibility of the Church and infallibility of teaching applies ONLY to matters of faith and morals. Even the scurrilous Popes of the Middle Ages, who did all KINDS of indefensible things and were an embarrassment the Church will never live down, never in their position as Pope taught error in faith and morals.

 

[andzy]

It may have authority but that does not mean it has not erred. 2 different issues. We know it has erred at times in history on a number of issues.

You just have to separate errors of doctrines and errors of living them out, errors of political nature, etc. 2 different issues. The Church has indeed made latter errors, but never errors of doctrines (you might disagree based on your interpretation, but then you still have to show the correctness of your interpretation).
Do you think Moses never made any errors (if you read the Bible, you’ll see that he did). But does that give you a free pass to disregard some of the 10 Commandments or any other of his laws (it’s true that we don’t observe some of them anymore, but that’s nothing to do with Moses, but because Jesus fulfilled them)?
And guess what: I’m sure even Jesus erred! Do you think that as a carpenter he never made any error when making furniture (and whatever else)?

P.S. Still waiting an answer on my question…

 

[guanophore]

i’m almost afraid for asking another question for fear of being blasted for doing so but will do so anyway.

It was not my intention to “blast” you ja4. I just want to note that your questions are not for the purpose of personal edification , which is the purpose of the forum, but so that you can entreat Catholics to abandon their faith.

Perhaps i was not clear in my question. What i’m asking for an “oral saying of one of the apostles of the NT” who said something that is not recorded in the NT and is used as a theological grounding for some doctrine in the catholic church?

That is what I gave you in the Athanasian Creed. These are the sayings of the Apostles.

 

[po18guy]

Not so. i try very hard when i study the scriptures to understand the context, what words mean and consult scholarly works to understand it. What i don’t see for the most part on these forums is this kind study by those who defend the catholic faith.

Private study leads to private interpretation. That is precisely why there are 33,000+ denominations. We want only one church, as Christ founded one church. We let our forefathers in the faith shed their blood for us, and do our interpreting for us. Remember who seeks the destruction of the church-the evil one loves the division sparked by private interpretation. When we fight each other, we don’t fight against him-we please him. Lord have mercy!

The problem is that your authority has never interpreted the scriptures in any depth. Rome may speak with one voice buts its members i see here don’t. Many of them have their own ideas about catholic doctrines and practices.

No depth!?! The CC has an unparalleled deposit of scriptural interpretation, running from Genesis clear through to today, by the most spiritually gifted early Christian fathers which ever trod creation. Don’t be jealous-be joyful that it has been done for you, and for all. Written in their blood, when necessary.

Catholics don’t all agree? Mankind never has, never will. What matters is that the truth be taught. It is our responsibility to believe the truth. We are free to reject it, but it remains the truth.

You claim tradition but you can’t show me specifically in many cases where this tradition is found. If its an oral tradition you are in even worse shape since you have no way to know what exactly that was in relation to the apostles.

Paul claimed tradition, not me. I just repeat him. He didn’t cite his sources for tradition either. At that time, it was much more important that tradition be continued, than to cite its obvious origins. It clearly originated both with Christ, and those whom he sent. Where is it found? Sounds crazy and oversimplified, but it is in the Catholic Church, where it remains to this day. Tradition has been practiced continously since being initiated by Christ (and established/approved/practiced under Peter, who had absolute power to bind and loose-even to establish tradition). Once established, tradition has been preserved.

I think of it as scripture being the knowledge of Christ, and tradition being the practice of Christ.

I don’t uderstand you here. Can you clarify?

As the body has a right and left hand, so does our faith have two hands: scripture and tradition. Our faith cannot exist without both. In the reformation, much tradition was cast out. Since then, much more of it has been discarded. Now, all that’s left is scripture-the tradition Paul handed on was lost to antiquity. So, to compensate for this perceived emptiness, OSAS and all of the “sola” doctrines have been innovated. They cannot replace tradition.

Try this: imagine that the Catholic Church had long ago discarded the bible and relied solely on tradition. Mass would be cut in half, and we would be ignorant of Christ. OK? Now, imagine our incredulity when you try to tell us that there is more to Christianity than just tradition. We don’t believe you, because we’ve been taught that our tradition is all that is needed for salvation. See?

The Catholic Church has faithfully preserved both scripture (you read their zealous work every day) and tradition-our practice of the faith.

Please remember, I am more the evangelist than the apologist, but I hope this explained a little to you.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[mercygate]

justasking4:

Not so. i try very hard when i study the scriptures to understand the context, what words mean and consult scholarly works to understand it. What i don’t see for the most part on these forums is this kind study by those who defend the catholic faith.

I have no choice but to accept this statement as your honest view. But I have never heard anything so far from the mark as this! Would you like to visit my personal library?

The problem is that your authority has never interpreted the scriptures in any depth.

Again, I am gasping for air. As a Protestant, trained for ministry in a denomination that prides itself on its biblical scholarship, I found more depth among Catholic theologians and scripture scholars than I ever found in my former training. That said, I must confess that I was formed during the “dark ages” of modern theology when everyone was reading people like Bultmann (God help us). I am sure on this thread the *Catechism *has been linked for you. Catholic Scripture study begins with understanding that Scripture presents several levels of meaning.

You actually have a point about the Church not officially interpreting Scripture. There are only a handful of passages Catholics must interpret in only one way. A classic example is the Book of Jonah. We are free to believe that it is a literal, actual, historical event, and that Jonah actually spent 3 days in the belly of the fish, or that the book is a parable of grace.

Rome may speak with one voice buts its members i see here don’t. Many of them have their own ideas about catholic doctrines and practices.

I find that knowledgeable Catholics here speak pretty much with one voice. Again: we are permitted considerable liberty in interpreting Scripture when we are consistent with Church teaching.

Shall we leave this byroad and return to topic?

 

[guanophore]

Why? Because it feels good? What authority did the Church have in 393 A.D. that it does not have now?

ja4 believes that false teachings crept into the church, and that false teachers arose from within the church, and that the faithful, by not making the scripture primary, failed to hold it’s leadership accountable for teaching falsely, so that Catholics ended up with “speculations of men” being taught as doctrine.

 

[mercygate]

ja4 believes that false teachings crept into the church, and that false teachers arose from within the church, and that the faithful, by not making the scripture primary, failed to hold it’s leadership accountable for teaching falsely, so that Catholics ended up with “speculations of men” being taught as doctrine.

Yes, I understand that, but my question was “WHY” does our interlocutor believe “the Church got it right” when closing the canon? Luther makes more sense. He took the logical path from dissent against Church Authority to making a direct assault on the canon. Protestants should be grateful he didn’t get away with it.