M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
I was talking to a gentleman on a diffrent forum and he asked me what part of sacred tradition hasn’t been writen down in the bible? What should I say? Thanks and God bless.
- Status
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Montie Claunch:
There are many things where the Bible hints at something and the Church beginning with the Apostles developed beliefs and Practices that reflected those beliefs. For instance Sunday Worship is hinted at in the Bible by “The Lords Day” but not specifically spelled out. The Primacy of Peter and the Primacy of Rome is hinted at but not spelled out. Beliefs about Mary are another area.
S
Sherlock
Guest
First, I would cite Paul: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). " Clearly Tradition is not all written down, and nowhere does it say (in response to his probable claim that it was written down after Paul wrote this) that it will all be written down. The idea that all Apostolic teaching is found in the Bible is actually an extra-Biblical tradition held by some Protestants.
Some relevant passages from the catholic.com article “Scripture and Tradition”:
"Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2). "
Some relevant passages from the catholic.com article “Scripture and Tradition”:
"Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2). "
J
JimG
Guest
Sacred Tradition is simply the teaching of the Apostles.
It’s not as though the Apostles said to themselves, “let’s write down this part, but not that part.” They set out to teach, not to write.
The writings of the New Testament were written to specific groups of people for specific purposes. They were not written as, or intended to be, a complete summary of Christian doctrine, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
From the beginning, it was the Church which taught. Jesus commanded, Go therefore and teach all nations. He didn’t command, go therefore and write a comprehensive summary to serve as a definitive doctrinal text.
It’s not as though the Apostles said to themselves, “let’s write down this part, but not that part.” They set out to teach, not to write.
The writings of the New Testament were written to specific groups of people for specific purposes. They were not written as, or intended to be, a complete summary of Christian doctrine, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
From the beginning, it was the Church which taught. Jesus commanded, Go therefore and teach all nations. He didn’t command, go therefore and write a comprehensive summary to serve as a definitive doctrinal text.
A
Alfie
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
That’s rather frightening to me. If it isn’t written down and it is passed on by word of mouth it is bound to be different from one person to the next. Just ask five people who saw an accident and you will get five variations of the accident and none the same.
What exactly do you mean when you say that the Bible hints at some things? In otherwords it only hints at Peter being the first Pope…right? None of the other disciples recognized him as Pope or defer to him in any of the writings in the New Testament.
Isn’t all Catholic tradition passed down by word of mouth?
That’s rather frightening to me. If it isn’t written down and it is passed on by word of mouth it is bound to be different from one person to the next. Just ask five people who saw an accident and you will get five variations of the accident and none the same.
What exactly do you mean when you say that the Bible hints at some things? In otherwords it only hints at Peter being the first Pope…right? None of the other disciples recognized him as Pope or defer to him in any of the writings in the New Testament.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Unless, of course, the Holy Spirit is leading and guiding the Church in all truth (as Our Lord promised).
The Catholic Church didn’t “set it up” this way - Jesus did. Jesus never once instructed anyone to write down anything.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
The Catholic Church Before The New Testament Was Written Down
CATHOLIC TRADITION
THE KEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
by Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D
PART I: THE BIBLE THE ONLY WAY?
The impression given by ‘bible’ Christians, 'evangelists and others brought up in a non-Catholic view of Christianity, is that the ‘authority’ of the bible is ‘supreme’.
As an ‘evangelical’ writer in the Sydney Morning Herald put it some time ago (June 15, 1992) ‘the Bible is not just a source of knowledge of God, but it is the source — the only source’.
The same author went on to say: ‘The view of Martin Luther and his modern-day reformed evangelical counterparts is that there is only one reliable source of knowledge of God: the Bible’.
Without mentioning the Catholic Church the author then goes on to talk about a so-called liberal view, also centuries old and still very much found today within certain church circles (which) suggests that there are potentially four valid grounds for knowledge of God and his dealings with us, namely reason, tradition, experience, as well as revelation.’
The author categorises Catholic views on the important role of Reason and Tradition in the religious quest, as liberal,’ implying that the fundamentalist ‘evangelical’ view is ‘conservative’.
*The ‘Ancient’ Christian Faith was Catholic *
…
more at
jloughnan.tripod.com/newtest.htm
CATHOLIC TRADITION
THE KEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
by Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D
PART I: THE BIBLE THE ONLY WAY?
The impression given by ‘bible’ Christians, 'evangelists and others brought up in a non-Catholic view of Christianity, is that the ‘authority’ of the bible is ‘supreme’.
As an ‘evangelical’ writer in the Sydney Morning Herald put it some time ago (June 15, 1992) ‘the Bible is not just a source of knowledge of God, but it is the source — the only source’.
The same author went on to say: ‘The view of Martin Luther and his modern-day reformed evangelical counterparts is that there is only one reliable source of knowledge of God: the Bible’.
Without mentioning the Catholic Church the author then goes on to talk about a so-called liberal view, also centuries old and still very much found today within certain church circles (which) suggests that there are potentially four valid grounds for knowledge of God and his dealings with us, namely reason, tradition, experience, as well as revelation.’
The author categorises Catholic views on the important role of Reason and Tradition in the religious quest, as liberal,’ implying that the fundamentalist ‘evangelical’ view is ‘conservative’.
*The ‘Ancient’ Christian Faith was Catholic *
…
more at
jloughnan.tripod.com/newtest.htm
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
The Creeds would be a good answer. Material contained in the Church Fathers. Stuff that the scriptures don’t spell out like what time to worship, how to plan out the order of worship, etc.,
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
We are not talking about five human beings who witnessed something. We are talking about human beings choosen by God in Apostolic succession and guided by the Holy Spirit. You won’t find the word “Pope” in the Bible but you will find the primacy of Peter and how he was recognized by the other apostles and specially singled out by Christ from among the twelve.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Where is the Holy Trinity spelled out in the Bible? It’s not, it comes from Sacred Tradition. The New Testament Canon? Sacred Tradition.
Notworthy
Notworthy
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Alfie, we have so much to teach you!
**John 21:15-17…
Three times in these verses Jesus Christ tells Peter to “Feed My Sheep”, or to “Feed My Lambs”. For proper understanding of these verses it is necessary to refer to the underlying Greek text.
In verse 16, the Greek word used for “feed” is “poimaino” (second person singular), which means, to act as a SHEPHERD, to rule, to govern, to pastor, or the presiding officer. It is the only time this Greek word is used in the Gospel of John. In verses 15 and 17, the Greek word used for “feed” is “bosko”, which means to feed. So verses 15-17 say ‘feed my lambs, shepherd my lambs, and feed my sheep’. Jesus told Peter alone to be the SHEPHERD of His flock.
In John 10:16, Jesus said, “…and there shall be one fold and ONE SHEPHERD.” The Greek word used here is “poimen (masculine, singular)”. Clearly, Jesus said in these verses that there will be only ONE SHEPHERD, and that shepherd will be Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope.
****Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem…
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,
"Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe."
Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. Now that is primacy.
****Every time the names of the Apostles are listed, except for Gal 2:9, his name appears first. In Mt 10:2 it even says that Peter is first, "Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,…". See also Mk 3:16, Lk 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13.
Peter’s name appears first also when 3 or 4 of the Apostles are listed: Mt 17:1, Mk 5:37, Mk 9:2,
Mk 13:3, Mk 14:33, Lk 5:8-10, Lk 8:51, Lk 9:28.
As for Gal 2:9, it was customary then, as it is to this very day, to name the Bishop of the Diocese first. If the Pope visited a Diocese, the Bishop would be named ahead of him as it is the proper protocol. In Gal 2, Peter was visiting Jerusalem, as verses 1-8 show.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who deny the Primacy of Peter, will invariably point to this one and only verse where Peter is named second and will completely ignore the many verses which list his name first. If James held the primacy as some would like us to believe, then why is he mentioned first in only one single verse?
****** Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
******* Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
******* Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
(Acts 1:15-22).
- Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
- Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the Gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
- Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
- Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
(Acts 5:2-11). - Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
- Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
- Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).
- Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
- Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
- Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
***This does not even include Jesus’ pronouncement of Peter “the Rock” or the Old Testament office that pre-figures Peter’s Primacy.
Notworthy***
S
Sherlock
Guest
R
Redbandito
Guest
Alfie:
Very nice. I like the verses that have been used so far, especially 2 Thess 2:13. A couple other very good verses are 1 Tim 3:15, in which it states to the chagrin of many Evangelicals that it is “the Church” which is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and not the Bible. The other verse that I think is as strong as any other verse as far as oral tradition goes is 1 Thess 2:13 which states, “13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe”. This is long before the canon of the NT was complete, and it states very clearly that the “Word of God” was preached, for they “heard” it.
- Status