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

[zerocrossing]

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.

And not only that, but most Protestants believe it - just as most Protestants believe Peter was crucified upside down on a cross. That’s not in scripture either. It comes exclusively from Tradition.

Protestants accept Tradition - such as the canon of scripture and stories about the martyrs of the early Church. But they accept Tradition selectively, based on subjective criteria.

The irony is that ultimately their own version of Christianity comes down to a tradition - i.e. that Luther is the restorer of the apostolic faith and that his sola scriptura claims are the equivalent of dogma.

In all fairness, they don’t really realize the internal contraditions in their approach. So I would not accuse them of dishonesty or insincerity. Most of them are very sincere. And there are many whom I dearly love. But I do think that Protestantism is near-sighted in its approach to Tradition.

 

[andzy]

And not only that, but most Protestants believe it - just as most Protestants believe Peter was crucified upside down on a cross. That’s not in scripture either. It comes exclusively from Tradition.

Yes, and the main Protestant tradition, the Sola Scriptura, itself depends on the Catholic Tradition, namely, which books exactly make up the the Bible.

Protestants accept Tradition - such as the canon of scripture and stories about the martyrs of the early Church. But they accept Tradition selectively, based on subjective criteria.

The irony is that ultimately their own version of Christianity comes down to a tradition - i.e. that Luther is the restorer of the apostolic faith and that his sola scriptura claims are the equivalent of dogma.

In all fairness, they don’t really realize the internal contraditions in their approach. So I would not accuse them of dishonesty or insincerity. Most of them are very sincere. And there are many whom I dearly love. But I do think that Protestantism is near-sighted in its approach to Tradition.

Amen!

 

[justasking4]

Erich;2829516]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?

Good questions. Evidently the mere fact that a writing that was somehow associated with an apostle was enough for the church to recognize that what was written was the truth in those documents. I also remember reading somewhere where Paul makes mention of “all cretans are liars” in Titus 1:12 does have some historical support for it.

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?

Why would this be a problem if they referenced other works outside of scripture?

 

[justasking4]

andzy;2829530]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.)

No doubt this document is one of the more interesting documents outside the NT. What this does demonstrate is how difficult if not impossible it is to give any real evidence-proof of a Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles outside the NT.

P.S. I hope you’re not avoiding my question.

nope.

 

[zerocrossing]

Good questions. Evidently the mere fact that a writing that was somehow associated with an apostle was enough for the church to recognize that what was written was the truth in those documents.

One thing that is interesting in the development of the New Testament canon of scripture is that there were a lot of writings purporting to be associated with Apostles that the Church did not accept as such.

Consequently, we do not have the “Gospel of Thomas” in our Bibles - or any number of other epistles and gospels that contradict the Truth as it has come down to us through the Tradition.

Many of the writings that claimed apostolic authorship (or authorship by non-apostolic disciples, such as Mary Magdalen) were actually authored by Gnostic heretics. Thanks to archaeology, many of these writings have been unearthed, so we have objective proof that the early Church had to make a lot of determinations regarding what was scripture and what was not. It was the Church that preserved us from these erroneous writings.

So I guess my question to you would be: How did the Church know what to accept and what not to accept as truly apostolic and truly inspired? How did the Church know that various writings claiming apostolic origin were not truly written by the apostles or their associates? And on what basis do you believe that the Church got the canon right when there were so many options to choose from?

 

[justasking4]

zerocrossing;2832693]And not only that, but most Protestants believe it - just as most Protestants believe Peter was crucified upside down on a cross. That’s not in scripture either. It comes exclusively from Tradition.

Protestants accept Tradition - such as the canon of scripture and stories about the martyrs of the early Church. But they accept Tradition selectively, based on subjective criteria.

What is Tradition specifically that you are referring to? Do you know what the Traditions were in the first 4 centuries of the church?
If a protestant knows specifically what the Traditions are then we can see if they are truly accepting or rejecting them on subjective criteria.

The irony is that ultimately their own version of Christianity comes down to a tradition - i.e. that Luther is the restorer of the apostolic faith and that his sola scriptura claims are the equivalent of dogma.

In all fairness, they don’t really realize the internal contraditions in their approach. So I would not accuse them of dishonesty or insincerity. Most of them are very sincere. And there are many whom I dearly love. But I do think that Protestantism is near-sighted in its approach to Tradition.

I think your answer can help to clear up some of this near-sightedness that you speak of.

 

[mercygate]

No doubt this document is one of the more interesting documents outside the NT. What this does demonstrate is how difficult if not impossible it is to give any real evidence-proof of a Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles outside the NT.

Are you looking for an “oral” tradition that never got written down?

I think we get over-enthusiastic about the word “oral” when we connect it with Tradition. Most of what we have as Sacred Tradition got itself written down (if only as changes were introduced and refuted so we could figure out what the objections were objecting TO). Things like the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr give us very early reference to the actual practice of the early Church. Such documents arise FROM the Tradition.

But, of course, once written down, it leaves the realm of “oral” tradition.

 

[justasking4]

Erich;2830088]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Please give me a specific “Sacred Oral Tradition” of an apostle that is not written scripture.
Erich
Do you believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death?

What does this have to do with “a specific Sacred Oral Tradition of an apostle that is not written scripture”?

 

[mercygate]

What is Tradition specifically that you are referring to? Do you know what the Traditions were in the first 4 centuries of the church?

Earlier posts refer to the Traditions as found in the Early Fathers.

If a protestant knows specifically what the Traditions are then we can see if they are truly accepting or rejecting them on subjective criteria.

A lot of Protestants feel a cold chill when they read early Church history and theology. They come to recognize that the early Church looked a LOT more Catholic than Protestant. Newman said it with poignant recognition: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[zerocrossing]

What is Tradition specifically that you are referring to? Do you know what the Traditions were in the first 4 centuries of the church?

Sure. You accept the Canon of New Testament Scripture. The Canon was established by means of Tradition regarding what was truly apostolic/inspired and what was not. It was not ratified as a Canon until the late 4th century.

It was the Church’s Tradition that gave you Scripture.

 

[zerocrossing]

I think your answer can help to clear up some of this near-sightedness that you speak of.

Would you mind clarifying?

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;2833088]Are you looking for an “oral” tradition that never got written down?

i keep reading posts that claim there is some kind of Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles that is not in written Scripture. If there is such a thing then i would like to know specifically what this is.

I think we get over-enthusiastic about the word “oral” when we connect it with Tradition. Most of what we have as Sacred Tradition got itself written down (if only as changes were introduced and refuted so we could figure out what the objections were objecting TO). Things like the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr give us very early reference to the actual practice of the early Church. Such documents arise FROM the Tradition.

But, of course, once written down, it leaves the realm of “oral” tradition.

What is this Sacred Tradition? What are specific examples of it in the first 3 centuries for example?

 

[justasking4]

Would you mind clarifying?

I’m referring to this last paragraph:
Quote:
The irony is that ultimately their own version of Christianity comes down to a tradition - i.e. that Luther is the restorer of the apostolic faith and that his sola scriptura claims are the equivalent of dogma.

In all fairness, they don’t really realize the internal contraditions in their approach. So I would not accuse them of dishonesty or insincerity. Most of them are very sincere. And there are many whom I dearly love. But I do think that Protestantism is near-sighted in its approach to Tradition.

How is protestantism nearsighted in its approach to Tradiiton? What Traditions are you referring to?

 

[justasking4]

Sure. You accept the Canon of New Testament Scripture. The Canon was established by means of Tradition regarding what was truly apostolic/inspired and what was not. It was not ratified as a Canon until the late 4th century.

It was the Church’s Tradition that gave you Scripture.

What else on a doctrine level?

 

[justasking4]

Earlier posts refer to the Traditions as found in the Early Fathers.
A lot of Protestants feel a cold chill when they read early Church history and theology. They come to recognize that the early Church looked a LOT more Catholic than Protestant. Newman said it with poignant recognition: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

I would counter Newman with this: To know the Scriptures is to be Protestant.

 

[mercygate]

i keep reading posts that claim there is some kind of Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles that is not in written Scripture. If there is such a thing then i would like to know specifically what this is.

OK. Just between you and me. Shhhhhh. Jesus whispered a bunch of stuff to the Apostles behind closed doors and told them to pass it on to their successors as **Oral Tradition **but not to let ordinary people get hold of it. Then whenever a new bishop was appointed/elected, bishops who had received the secret message and the secret handshake initiated the newcomer into the esoteric mysteries known only to the brass . . . **NOT!] **

What is this Sacred Tradition? What are specific examples of it in the first 3 centuries for example?

Other posters have already pointed you in the direction of these sources. Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers gives the ECFs on specific practices and teachings. I have not read The Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett but it is highly recommended as a source for early doctrinal tradition in the Church.

One “tradition” I CAN cite is a prayer dating from 250 A.D., referring to Mary as “Mother of God” (Theotokos). The official articulation of this doctrine did not occur until the Council of Ephesus in 351 A.D.

 

[zerocrossing]

To know the Scriptures is to be Protestant.

With all due respect, I know Scriptures. I even know them using Evangelical presuppositions and methodologies. There’s a good chance that I know the Protestant side of the argument as well as (or better than) you do.

Do you know Church history? I mean, *really *know it? Or do you just know the Protestant Cliff Notes version of it? (“The Church became corrupt with the rise of Constantine and was miraculously resurrected in 1517.” Of course, never mind that the Canon of New Testament Scripture was not fully ratified until well after Constantine.)

 

[zerocrossing]

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

Unbiblical teachings before there was even a Christian Bible. Interesting.

 

[justasking4]

Unbiblical teachings before there was even a Christian Bible. Interesting.

After the apostles wrote the NT there was a canon even if the church did not recognize it.
Question: was the early church aware of these writings even though the canon had not been formalized?

 

[justasking4]

zerocrossing;2833324]With all due respect, I know Scriptures. I even know them using Evangelical presuppositions and methodologies. There’s a good chance that I know the Protestant side of the argument as well as (or better than) you do.

Great. Perhaps i will something from you.

Do you know Church history? I mean, *really *know it?

i still need to study. Sounds you are an expert in it. If so, then i will certainly learn some things.

Or do you just know the Protestant Cliff Notes version of it? (“The Church became corrupt with the rise of Constantine and was miraculously resurrected in 1517.”

If the catholic church was not corrupt, then why was desired in the catholic church itself for a reformation around the 15th century?

Do you consider the inquisitions that was supported by various popes for centuries a sign of corruption?

How about some of the popes, the vicars of Christ who were evil. Is this a sign of corruption?

Of course, never mind that the Canon of New Testament Scripture was not fully ratified until well after Constantine.)