R
- Status
P
Philthy
Guest
Its only 3 pages long! My examples are sequentially listed - I simply listed them as I read through it…but for you I’ll do it…
- Scripture nowhere indicates that Christ gave instructions on the content, timing or order of worship; Clement says that "the Master…has commanded the offerings and services…be celebrated…not carelessly nor in disorder, but at fixed times and hours.
From the beginning of Chapter 19. The paragraph starts with…“Since, therefore these things are clear to us…”- No distinction of who may offer offerings and services is made in Scripture; Clement differentiates between the high priest, priests, and the laymen(who are bound by ordinances)
**This is from the ending of Chapter 19. ** - Scripture does not record that the Apostles made arrangements for their offices when they died; Clement says “they appointed those… already mentioned, and…added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”
**This is from Chapters 20 and 21 **- BTW, these chapters quite forcefully refute your concept of lack of Apostolic Succession, the appointing of bishops, etc…
Chapter 20 starts with,“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord…”; Chapter 21 starts with, “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”
Sounds like either he had different Scripture than we do, or he spoke to the Apostles directly. - Scripture does not mention that any writings of men other than Scripture are inspired by the holy Spirit; Clement says “(be) obedient to the things which we have written through the holy Spirit…”
“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the pleas for peace and concord which we have made in this letter.” Again, claiming to be writing by the Spirit of God. - No distinction of who may offer offerings and services is made in Scripture; Clement differentiates between the high priest, priests, and the laymen(who are bound by ordinances)
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Its only 3 pages long! My examples are sequentially listed - I simply listed them as I read through it…but for you I’ll do it…
- Scripture nowhere indicates that Christ gave instructions on the content, timing or order of worship; Clement says that "the Master…has commanded the offerings and services…be celebrated…not carelessly nor in disorder, but at fixed times and hours.
From the beginning of Chapter 19. The paragraph starts with…“Since, therefore these things are clear to us…”This last point comes from Chapter 28a and 29. If these chapters dont match yours, let me know. Chapter 28a begins with “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us…” I bold it because they are claiming to speak for Him. Chapter 29 is the next to the last chapter. Its short, I’ll type it out for you:
- No distinction of who may offer offerings and services is made in Scripture; Clement differentiates between the high priest, priests, and the laymen(who are bound by ordinances)
**This is from the ending of Chapter 19. **- Scripture does not record that the Apostles made arrangements for their offices when they died; Clement says “they appointed those… already mentioned, and…added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”
**This is from Chapters 20 and 21 **- BTW, these chapters quite forcefully refute your concept of lack of Apostolic Succession, the appointing of bishops, etc…
Chapter 20 starts with,“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord…”; Chapter 21 starts with, “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”
Sounds like either he had different Scripture than we do, or he spoke to the Apostles directly.- Scripture does not mention that any writings of men other than Scripture are inspired by the holy Spirit; Clement says “(be) obedient to the things which we have written through the holy Spirit…”
“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the pleas for peace and concord which we have made in this letter.” Again, claiming to be writing by the Spirit of God.
Ok, I lied just a little. Please read this in context, you left out the ending
I think the key area of contention is that the early church indicates that leaders are chosen by a vote and it says nothing about the laying on of hands in any linear fashion. People were appointed, which we know from Paul but once again Paul did not have hands laid on him by an Apostle, but in no way is that the pattern of the NT or early church. It was a voting situation.
Ok I will try not to lie again.
M
Metaron
Guest
Individual Fathers don’t carry weight by themselves. It needs to be taken in context of whole of Patristics.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Basil, The Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370):
“The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?”
…"Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we posses from written teaching and others we received from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kerygma to a mere term. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East in prayer? Which of the saints left us in writing the words of the epiclesis at the consecration of the Bread of the Eucharist and of the Cup of Benediction? For we are not content with those words the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but we say other things also, both before and after; and we regard these other words, which we have received from unwritten teaching, as being of great importance to the mystery.
…Where is it written that we are to bless the baptismal water, the oil of anointing, and even the one who is being baptized? Is it not from the silent and mystical tradition? Indeed, in what written word is even the anointing oil taught? Where does it say that in baptizing there is to be a triple immersion? And the rest of the things done at baptism – where is it written that we are to renounce Satan and his angels? Does this not come from that secret and arcane teaching which our Fathers guarded in a silence not too curiously meddled with and not idly investigated, when they had learned well that reverence for the mysteries is best preserved by silence… In the same way the Apostles and Fathers who, in the beginning, prescribed the Church’s rites, guarded in secrecy and silence the dignity of the mysteries; for that which is blabbed at random and in the public ear is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our handing on of unwritten precepts and practices; that the knowledge of our dogmas may not be neglected and held in contempt by the multitude through too great a familiarity. Dogma and kerygma are two distinct things. Dogma is observed in silence; kerygma is proclaimed to all the world"
A
anthony022071
Guest
Basil, The Holy Spirit (c. A.D. 370):
“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form ‘with the Spirit’ has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. ‘I praise you,’ it is said, ‘that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;’ and ‘Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.’ One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.”
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 4:6 (c. A.D. 384):
“…I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion?”
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 3,4 (c. A.D. 392):
“Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful mysteries”
“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form ‘with the Spirit’ has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. ‘I praise you,’ it is said, ‘that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;’ and ‘Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.’ One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.”
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 4:6 (c. A.D. 384):
“…I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion?”
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 3,4 (c. A.D. 392):
“Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful mysteries”
I
Ilroy
Guest
Not exactly true. Go to Acts Ch. 13 from vs. 1 forward. Paul did have hands laid on him as did Barnabas at the same time and they were went forth.
CHAPTER 13.
1 NOW there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
*2 And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.
3 Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. *
4 So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Then go to 1st Timothy Ch. 4 and see where it shows that Paul laid hands on Timothy.
14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I am trying to quit this thread but it does not seem to be working.
P
Philthy
Guest
OK - first issue: Is this concept of “perfect foreknowledge” of the Apostles in choosing their successors biblical or is it an extrabiblical tradition found in the early Church? It is extrabiblical.
Second issue - where, exactly, does it say to vote on it?
If you want to take it literally, it says the “whole Church” must “consent” to the appointments - does that mean you believe only a unanimous vote would do?
Neither did I - but if we can find all these other extrabiblical traditions in the early Church, why would it surprise you to find one as reasonable as the laying on of hands? Your basis for rejecting the traditions of Catholicism is flawed - its a moving target of your own invention: some fixed, unalterable, set of rules. If God meant it to be so, why didnt he simply write it into the NT clearly like He did with the OT?
I dont remember a voting situation in the NT - I recall a single situation involving choice by “lot”, but I could be wrong…
I
Ilroy
Guest
M
Metaron
Guest
P
Philthy
Guest
Were you hoping to learn something or to teach something when you started it? Perhaps the thread did not turn out as you expected and you wish to leave it believing what you did before you started it. And perhaps that has become impossible for you to do in good conscience…
Then again, maybe your just bored of it…
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
It confirms what I thought but it adds some perspective about how some interpreted the teachings of the Apostles and Christ. Nothing to contradict my beliefs but an interesting perspective in a couple of areas how they interpreted certain things.
Bored? It gets that way yes. It does not seem to get anywhere.
Catholics are convinced they are right and I just am too stubborn or whatever to get it and me thinking the same about you.
Bye. Be well
A
Alexius
Guest
Generalizations do not work well. I am always open to the Truth wherever it is, as are many others.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
M
Metaron
Guest
The Greek word πρεσβυτερος (presbyteros) is used in the New Testament for people who perform the priestly functions in the Church. It means elder. The English word that developed over time from presbyter is priest. (Note the progression from presbyter to prester to priest.) It is a contraction of presbyter. The qualifications for presbyters are given in 1 Timothy 5. The office, function, and name came into the Church from the ancient synagogue.
After this word was developed, in modern English translations it was used to translate the word hierateuma as well.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
Philthy, Thak you for that crushing evidence from the Didache, I could not have said it better myself.
I think the most incredible Truth not taught in scripture is the canon of scripture, which the Catholic Church decided in 382 ad under pope Damasus and was ratified twice under St Augustine at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397ad.
That is the greatest form of Sacred Tradition not found in scripture.
I think the most incredible Truth not taught in scripture is the canon of scripture, which the Catholic Church decided in 382 ad under pope Damasus and was ratified twice under St Augustine at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397ad.
That is the greatest form of Sacred Tradition not found in scripture.
G
Ginger2
Guest
When I started reading this thread, I thought it was supposed to address Catholic doctrine not found in Scriptures that was supported by 1st Century Christians.
Most of what I have read is from the 2nd century on.
My understanding of the question, is did the Apostles really teach and follow these doctrines that appear to have come up after the Apostles went to their eternal reward?
For me, the earliest evidence bears stronger testimony than that of later doctrines. I also see more consistency in the Apostles teaching, whereas, the disagreements seem to increase with time.
J
Jlcastagna
Guest
Ginger, seeing as the last Apostle did not go to his eternal reward until some time between 90-100 any false teaching John would have spoken out about so the doctrines must have been sound up till then. In reality I’m guessing the support would have to come later than 100 thus all the support from the second century on.
May God bless and protect us,
JLC
- Status